JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.

1 (46-124)

y
From participles to gerunds*

pan
Com
Io Manolessou

ing
El gerundio llegó a ser un tumor maligno en el cuerpo del idioma. . .
Muñío Valverde (1995: 9)
lish
This article examines the passage from the inflected Ancient Greek (AG) active
participle to the uninflected Modern Greek (MG) active gerund, by offering a
Pub

synchronic morphological and syntactic description period-by-period. It claims

is that this evolution can be satisfactorily explained only if set in a wider context,
taking into account (a) similar evolutions in other languages, namely, the passage
ins

from partiple to gerund in Romance, Slavic and Baltic and (b) other evolutions
involving the participle within Greek, namely, the transformation of the Greek
am

passive participle into a nominal (adjectival) category. The change is interpreted

as the split of a “mixed” category (the participle), possessing both verbal and
enj

nominal features, to a purely verbal category (the active gerund) and a purely
nominal one (the passive participle).
nB

. Introduction
Joh

The present paper investigates the transition from the complex AG participle system,
which involves full nominal agreement (gender, number, case), multiple tenses and 3
-

voices (active, middle and passive), to the MG system, where the active voice possesses
only an indeclinable gerund.1 It also proposes a general, cross-linguistic motivation for
participle evolution, and sets down the implications of historical research for current
ofs

theoretical approaches to Greek gerunds.

The MG gerund is quite different from the English one,2 and therefore, the largest
pro

part of current research on the syntax of gerunds is irrelevant to it. Similarly, there is a
gap in the research on the historical evolution of the Greek gerund as well,3 since most
of the work done is now several decades old, not extensive and in some cases factually
ted

inaccurate or lacking a theoretical framework.

The main claim in this paper is that gerund evolution in Greek can be properly
rec

interpreted only if viewed in a wider context, and not examined as an isolated phe-
nomenon. What must also be taken into account is (a) similar evolutions in other
cor

languages and (b) other evolutions involving the participle within Greek.
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.2 (124-180)

 Io Manolessou

Section 2 gives a stage-by-stage account of the parallel evolutions of the gerund

and the passive participle, and Section 3 a short exposition of similar developments in

y
other languages. In Section 4 the various theories concerning the development of the

pan
MG gerund are evaluated. Finally, in Section 5 the theoretical implications of the data
are set out.

Com
. The data and the historical process of development

What follows is an overview of the developments leading from the AG to the MG

ing
participial system in a series of stages/steps, from both a morphological and a syntactic
viewpoint. This hopes to supplement the only available information until now, which
lish
comes either from a limited set of examples in standard Grammars or the at times
inaccurate account by the only comprehensive article on the topic, Mirambel (1961).
Pub

It should be noted that in order to acquire a secure picture of the linguistic sit-
uation in each period – especially of the earlier stages, where the origins of the de-
velopment are to be sought – scanning of large textual samples would be desirable,
for checking the distribution of the various alternative morphological and syntactic
ins

options. Unfortunately, such data are unavailable,4 and their collection goes much
beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, an effort was made to back up the
am

description with substantial cross-checking from texts.

enj

. Stage 1 – Ancient Greek

nB

Morphology
AG has two types of participle: active (consonant-stem) and middle/passive (o-stem),
both fully inflected for gender, number and case, and also indicating aspect and tense.5
Joh

The active participle shows a tendency to imitate the large sub-classes of consonant-
stem adjectives which have a common form for both masculine and feminine, and
-

to exhibit the same usage. This is shown by Rupprecht (1926), Langholf (1977) and
Petersmann (1979), who examine the appearance of masculine forms of the participle
with feminine subjects in Classical and Post-Classical authors, (1):
ofs

(1) a. Khlo:rai de skiades brithontes

green ptcl testers.nom.pl.fem abounding.nom.pl.masc.act
pro

anne:thou.
dill
‘And leafy testers well-dressed with dill.’ (Theocr.Idyll.15.119)
ted

b. Hepta. . . pyra:n. . .
seven. . . funeral.pyres.gen.pl.fem . . .
rec

telesthento:n.
having.been consumed.gen.pl.masc.act
cor

‘When the seven funeral pyres had been consumed.’ (Pind.Olymp.6.15)

Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.3 (180-241)

From participles to gerunds 

This usage is especially frequent in the corpus Hippocraticum (5th–4th c BC) and can
easily be observed in the gynaecological treatises, where the subject is unambiguously

y
a woman and where the masculine form is very often used for the active participle but

pan
never for the passive one (Langholf 1977: 300–302), (2):
(2) a. Myrsine:s phylla embalo:n. . . ito:.

Com
myrtle leaves having.placed.on.nom.sg.masc.act. . . go.imper.3sg
pros ton andra.
to the man
‘Having placed myrtle leaves (on herself). . . let her go to the man.’

ing
(Hp.Mul.I.viii.168.11–12)
b. Rhidzas anadzesa:s. . . kai
roots having.boiled.nom.sg.masc.act and
lish
lu:samene:. . . ito: pros ton andra
having.bathed.nom.sg.fem.mid. go.imper.3sg to the man
Pub

‘Having boiled roots. . . and bathed. . . let her go to the man.’

(Hp.Steril.VIII.434.7–10)
Thus, what previous accounts usually consider a “first evidence” of indeclinability is a
ins

feature of spoken language,6 already present in AG.

am

Syntax
The participle, both active and passive, has three uses (cf. Smyth 1965: 454–479 and
enj

Schwyzer 1950: 387–403 for details): attributive (adjectival modifier), complement (of
verbs), and adverbial (temporal, causal, manner, concessive, conditional, final etc).
nB

In all three cases it behaves like an adnominal modifier, agreeing in case, number
and gender with its subject (cf. (1) and (2)). The participle is either “conjoined”, if
Joh

its subject is co-referential with a constituent in the main clause, in which case the
participle agrees with this constituent, or “absolute”, if its subject is unrelated with all
constituents of the main clause, in which case both the participle and its subject appear
-

in the genitive case. Circumstantial participles can be introduced by a variety of con-

junctions: temporal (hama), causal (hate, hoion, ho:s), final (ho:s), concessive (kaiper,
kai tauta) etc.
ofs

. Stage 2 – Koine (NT & papyri)

pro

Morphology
The AG system is maintained in general, but papyri show frequent cases of mascu-
ted

line forms for feminine, and of occasional errors of formation (cf. Dieterich 1898: 207;
Mayser 1934: 35, 194; Mandilaras 1973: 353–358; Gignac 1981: 131–132). Also, the pa-
rec

pyri often display the nominative form of the participle in preference to cases, some-
thing which happens with other consonant stem adjectives as well (r-stems, s-stems
cor

etc.). However, several of the examples of lack of agreement proposed by Grammars

Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.4 (241-307)

 Io Manolessou

(refs. above) are not true cases of lack of agreement, but instances of analogical re-
formations of endings. For example, the masculine nominative plural ending [-es]

y
instead of the accusative [-as] in the participle (e.g. autu:s. . . tithentes BGU.1122, 14–5,

pan
13 BC, tu:s philu:ntes P.Fay.119.26, 100 AD) is not a case of nominative being substi-
tuted for the accusative, but of the new analogical accusative ending, which had begun
to spread already in the Hellenistic period.7

Com
Mirambel (1961: 50) claims that the first stage of development is the disappearance
of inflection, followed only later by confusions of gender, something that is inexact. As
shown in 2.1, masculine forms in place of feminine ones are a feature of AG already,
and, as will be described in 2.3, masculine forms instead of neuter ones (i.e., [-onta]

ing
instead of [-on]) are not a phenomenon of gender change, but of morphological inno-
vation, i.e. a new neuter termination. Furthermore, some of his examples do not belong
lish
to this period at all (to:n riθen, ton sximatisθen quoted from Dieterich (1898: 207) come
from documents of the 12th c. AD). So in this period, participle inflection seems to be
rather well maintained.8
Pub

In order to acquire a clearer picture of the functioning of the participial system in

the papyri, a closer look at the primary data is required, as the standard Grammars of-
fer no quantitative information concerning the frequency of “incorrect” usage, which
ins

would give one an idea of the extent to which the change was beginning to spread.
A search of two 3rd c. BC corpora, P.Cair.Zen I–IV and P.Hibeh I, which contain
am

both official and private documents show that breaches of participial agreement are
very rare: among the hundreds of instances of participles occurring in the large corpus
enj

of these documents, one can hardly find 4–5 examples. These include: use of the mas-
culine instead of the feminine form, (3a), appearance of the masc. nom. plural ending
nB

[-es] instead of acc. [-as] as described above, (3b), use of the participle instead of the
infinitive, (3c), and, once, use of the masc.nom.sing instead of the fem.acc.sing., (3d).
Joh

(3) a. To:n aigo:n tiktonto:n.

the goats.gen.pl.fem giving.birth.gen.pl.masc.act
(P.Cair.Zen.59338.2)
-

b. Ginoske. . . upote eile:photes he:mas.

know.2sg.imp never having.taken.nom.pl.masc.act we.acc.pl.masc
‘Know that we never took.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59343.7)
ofs

c. Eneukhomai soi. . . apheis te:n gynaika

1sg.pres you.dat.sg. . . . leaving.nom.sg.masc.act the wife
pro

mu.
my
‘I am ordering you. . . to leave my wife.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59482.5)
ted

d. Apestalka soi te:n gynaika

send.1.sg.perf you.dat.sg the woman.acc.sg.fem
rec

phero:n soi te:n epistole:n.

bringing.nom.sg.masc.act you.dat.sg the letteracc.sg
cor

‘I have sent you the woman bringing you the letter.’ (P.Cair.Zen.59443.12)
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.5 (307-375)

From participles to gerunds 

On the contrary, the 2nd c. corpus of the Tebtunis papyri (P.Tebt.I and II) contains
dozens of instances of failing agreement. A crucial point is that they do not con-

y
cern only 3rd declensions participles, although, in the standard literature it is usually

pan
assumed that it is the difficult declension pattern of the 3rd declension (consonant-
stem), that has caused the eventual fossilization of the active participle into the
gerund, (4):

Com
(4) a. To hypomne:ma epidedomenon para Mestasytmios. . .
the report delivered by Mestasytmis.gen.sg.masc. . .
hypiskhnu:menos.

ing
promising.nom.sg.masc
‘The report delivered by Mestasytmis, promising. . . ’ (P.Tebt.58)
b. Ge:s
lish
kle:rukhike:s syno:rismene:n.
land.gen.sg.fem cleruchic bordered.acc.sg.fem.pass
‘Of cleruchic land, bordered. . . ’ (P.Tebt.82)
Pub

A comparison with another 2nd c. corpus, UPZ I and I.II, shows that this high fre-
quency is rather above the norm; in the UPZ corpus breaches of agreement occur only
5–6 times as well. Similarly, the papyrological specimens of the Christian era examined
ins

(Pap.Cair.Masp.I and III, BGU XV) contain very few instances of aberrant participial
usage. The conclusion to be drawn from the above overview is that the image pre-
am

sented by the papyri depends mainly on whether the writer’s native idiom is Greek (as
in most of the Zenon and UPZ papyri) or Egyptian (as in most of the Tebtunis corpus)
enj

or on the level of his education (as in the Christian era documents, which are mostly
legal texts).
nB

Syntax
Joh

Some uses of the participle are reduced: Thus, the predicative participle (i.e., in the
function of a verbal complement) is radically restricted in the NT, confined almost en-
tirely to Luke and Paul (BDF §414). Of the circumstantial meanings, some are retained
-

(temporal, causal, concessive) and some are on their way to disappear (conditional,
final), and the same is valid for the papyrological data as well (Mayser 1926: 348–
352, BDF §411; Jannaris 1897: 506). However, other uses are still quite strong, if
ofs

not increased- extensive participle usage is a characteristic feature of the Koine (cf.
Horrocks 1997: 46; Mayser 1934: 62). Most of the conjunctions accompanying partici-
pro

ples disappear or are retained only when the participle is used absolutely (BDF §425,
Mayser 1934: 64, 74).
An important syntactic innovation is the increase of unclassical “absolute” par-
ted

ticipial constructions,9 in two different structures: use of genitive absolute participles

although the participial subject is co-referent with a term in the clause (5a and b)
rec

and “hanging” nominative, a participle whose subject is not co-referent with any
term in (5c):
cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.6 (375-430)

 Io Manolessou

(5) a. Apestale:n eis ton hypo soi nomon. . . emu:

send.1sg.aor.pass. to the under you nome. . . I-gen

y
aite:samenu:

pan
having.petitioned.gen.sg.masc.act
‘I was sent to your district, having asked for it myself.’
(P.Giss.11.4 (118 AD))

Com
b. Me: ekhontos autu: apodu:nai, ekeleusen
neg having.gen.sg.masc.act he.gen.sg to-give back, ordered
auton ho kyrios autu:.
him.acc.sg the master his

ing
‘He being unable to give it back, his master ordered him. . . ’
lish (Ev.Matt.18.25)
c. Ekballu:sa hemas anekho:re:samen.
kicking.out.nom.sg.fem.act us left.1pl
Pub

‘After she kicked us out, we left.’ (UPZ 18.17 (163 BC))

This “breach” of the classical norm is not a Hellenistic evolution, as it already existed to
a certain degree in AG – Spieker (1885) and Schwyzer (1942) provide several examples.
ins

The innovation lies in the heightened frequency of the phenomenon. An examination

of the 4 Gospels of the NT, for example, shows that the norm is to use the absolute
am

construction whenever the participle is not subject-oriented, and to employ the con-
joined participle when it refers to the main clause subject (in which case it appears
enj

in the nominative) or to an infinitival clause subject (in which case it appears in the
accusative). In the same vein, Whaley (1990), examining the choice of the absolute
nB

vs. the conjoined construction in the NT, establishes that absolute participles occur
even when their subject is a constituent of the matrix clause when (a) the participial
subject is co-referent with a non-primary term, such as an indirect object, a preposi-
Joh

tional complement or noun raised out of a participial or subordinate clause or (b) the
participle belongs to an unaccusative or unergative verb.
-

. Stage 3 – Late post-classical / early medieval (4th–6th c.)

Morphology
ofs

The first concrete signs of inflectional erosion are neuter nom./acc. singular forms end-
ing in [-onta] instead of [-on], appearing ca. the 4th c. (Kapsomenakis 1938: 40), (6).
pro

(6) a. Zoðion. . . katexonta lampaða.

animal.acc.sg.neut. . . . holding.acc.sg.masc.act torch
ted

‘An animal holding a torch.’ (PGM.II.36.179, 4th c. AD)

b. To praγma to ðia Evðemonos lekθenta.
rec

the thing.acc.sg.neut the by Eudaimon said.acc.sg.masc.pass

‘The thing that was said by Eudaimon.’ (POxy.1348, late 3rd c. AD)
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.7 (430-484)

From participles to gerunds 

It is unclear whether this ending is an extension of the neuter plural nom./accusative

or of the masculine singular accusative, as both end in [-onta]. The second alterna-

y
tive is much likelier, both because the masculine is more frequent in speech than the

pan
neuter, and also because of a possible analogy with the 2nd declension (o-stem) passive
participles:10 in the 2nd declension, the masculine singular acc. ending is identical to
the neuter singular nom. and acc. (being in all cases [-menon]), so this formal identity

Com
between masculine and neuter might have been carried over to the 3rd declension as
well. In texts, active participles with the new ending frequently occur side by side with
medio-passive ones, (7):

ing
(7) a. Cektime ktima mite
possess.1sg.perf possession.acc.sg.neut neither
fθiromenon mite
lish
liγonta.
decaying.acc.sg.neut.pass neither ending.acc.sg.masc.act
‘I possess a possession which neither decays nor ends.’
Pub

(Acta Thomae 136.15)

b. Lutron mi ypoceomenon alla. . .
bath.acc.sg.neut neg burning.under.acc.sg.neut.pass but
ins

parexonta.
offering.masc.sg.acc.act
am

‘A bath not heated underneath, but offering. . . ’ (Malalas 178.65)

In early Medieval Greek (MedG) texts, such neuter forms occur occasionally.11 There
enj

are no quantitative studies on the extent of the phenomenon, and indeed it is almost
impossible for them to exist or to form a solid basis for conclusions, due to the tex-
nB

tual tradition of these linguistic monuments: the evidence for spoken language for the
period between the 6th and the 12th c. is very meager, and in most cases preserved in
Joh

manuscript copies several centuries posterior to the date of composition. The different
manuscripts preserving a text of the period may present several variant readings in the
passages in question, some maintaining the “classical” form and others showing the
-

innovative one.
To give some examples: the text of the critical edition of the Life of St. John the
Almsgiver, 6th c. (Gelzer 1893) prints 6 cases of the neuter participle with the new
ofs

-onta ending (cf. the editor’s Grammatisches Verzeichnis, entry Participia), and there
are alternative readings in -onta in 3 more cases, to be spotted only by checking the
pro

apparatus (at 50.6, 87.22 and 97.15). However, the manuscript tradition (the 6 mss.,
ABCDEF, used in the edition) is unanimous in none of these eight cases: three appear
only in A, two only in C, one only in E, one in ACEF and one in ABCE. It is thus
ted

impossible to guess which and how many of those stood in the original text, and which
are readings introduced by a later copyist. On the other hand, the text of Malalas,
rec

a main source for the low-register language of the period, is preserved in only one
manuscript, of the 12th c., and thus the lack of corroborating manuscript evidence
makes it another kind of insecure textual witness.
cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.8 (484-569)

 Io Manolessou

Table 1.
Text Century Attributive Complement Adverbial

y
Malalas 6th 15 2 4

pan
Leontios of Neapolis 6th 4 0 2
Chronicon Paschale 5th 3 0 0
Vita Epiphanii 6th 3 0 0

Com
Apocalypses Apocryphae 2nd–6th 5 1 0
Funerary inscriptions 5th–7th formulaic – –
Digenis E 12th 0 2 5
Chronicle of Morea (6000vv.) 14th 0 9 45

ing
War of Troy (4000vv.) 14th 0 2 17
Velthandros 14th 0 3 7
Livistros V 14th–15th 0 lish 0 2
Machairas (40pp) 15th 2 0 49
Pub

Nevertheless, considering that the new neuter -onta ending appears in almost all
the near-vernacular texts we possess from the period, even if not in unanimous textual
tradition, and even if less frequently than the classical ending, it should be considered
ins

as established in the spoken language by this time. The inscriptional evidence from the
same period (cf. Section 2.4 below) corroborates this assumption.
am

A further development in the active participle is the obsolescence of the Perfect

form (in -o:s, -yia, -os). It occurs very rarely in early MedG texts, often conjoined with
enj

Aorist forms (e.g. elθo:n. . . ce eorako:s Mal.221.62, pyisas ce. . . katesxiko:s Mal.372.15),
showing that the feeling for a special meaning of the Perfect had been lost. This se-
nB

mantic development in the Perfect (cf. Hatzidakis 1892: 204–205; Wolf 1911: 65–66,
and esp. Moser 1988 for details), which led to the loss of monolectic Perfect forms
and the evolution of periphrastic ones, left also the Passive Perfect Participle without
Joh

paradigm support. Gradually, one of its main characteristics, initial reduplication, was
lost, and this marked a step away from verbal properties.
-

Syntax
The new neuter form is still an agreeing participle, employed mostly with attributive
meaning. This can be gauged from the Table 1 which lists the usage of -onta/-ontas
ofs

forms in earlier vs. later MedG texts. All [-onta] forms in earlier texts are neuter nom.
or acc. singular, while those in the later texts are of any gender/number.
pro

“Attributive usage” includes cases where the participle is used as:

– an attributive modifier, equivalent to a relative clause, (8):
ted

(8) a. Etiçise to ðoras, xorion

fortify.1sg.aor the Doras.acc.sg.neut, village
rec

onta.
being.acc.sg.masc.act
cor

‘He fortified Doras, which is a village. . . .’ (Mal.326.54)

Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.9 (569-637)

From participles to gerunds 

b. To paraksenon lutron tu xrisokastrou/ to

the beautiful bath.acc.sg.neut. of the golden-castle/ the

y
jemonta tas iðonas.

pan
filled.acc.sg.masc.act the pleasures
‘The beautiful bath of the Golden Castle / filled with every kind of plea-
sure.’ (Kallimachos 1720)

Com
– a substantivised adjective, (9):

(9) Meli to pote apoθanonta ce

ing
going.to.3sg the.acc.sg.neut once dead.acc.sg.masc.act and
anastanta. . . apelefsesθe.
having.risen.acc.sg.masc.act. . . leave.inf lish
‘That which has died and risen again is going to leave.’ (Vit.Epiph.89A)
Pub

– a predicative modifier (i.e. a small clause), (10):

(10) Peðariu teleftisantos, zonta apeðoce

child.gen.sg.neut having died, living.acc.sg.masc.act give.3sg.aor
ins

ti mitri.
to the mother
am

‘A little child having died, he gave it back to its mother alive.’ (Chron.Pasch.181)
“Complement” includes cases where the participle is the complement of a verb, (11):
enj

(11) a. θeorunton to θirion ekfevγonta.

nB

seeing.pl.gen the beast.neut.sg.acc escaping.masc.sg.acc.pres.act

‘Seeing the beast escape.’ (Romanus Melodus 72.κδ.2)
b. Fenome pipraskonta ton emon ambelona.
Joh

appear.1sg.pres selling.acc.sg.masc.act the my vineyard

‘I declare that I am selling my vineyard.’ (Guillou, Messina 5, 1135 AD)
-

“Adverbial usage” includes cases where the participle is used as an adverbial, expressing
manner, cause, concession, etc., (12):
ofs

(12) a. ðeçete afton jyneon

greet.1sg.pres him woman.nom.sg.neut
prospiptonta ce leγonta.
pro

falling.down.acc.sg.masc.act and saying.acc.sg.masc.act

‘A woman greets him by falling on her knees and saying.’ (Leontios 64.1)
ted

b. Kleonta ce oðiromenos cite

crying.acc.sg.masc.act and wailing.nom.sg.masc.pass lie.3sg.pres
rec

is to klinarin.
at the bed
cor

‘He lies on the bed, crying and wailing.’ (Digenis E 393)

Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.10 (637-708)

 Io Manolessou

The old forms of the participle (masculine, feminine, other cases of the neuter), per-
fective and imperfective stem, are still in full use and extremely frequent.

y
In early MedG the unclassical usage of absolute participles observed in the previ-

pan
ous period continues and even increases (cf. Jannaris 1897: 500; Weierholt 1963: 70–
75). At the same time, a more clear-cut indication of the breakdown of agreement
between the matrix clause and the participial clause appears: the participle often seems

Com
to agree with the element immediately adjacent to it instead of with its subject (cf. also
Wolf 1912: 27–28), (13).
(13) a. Emine to jenos tu Perseos

ing
remained the kin.nom.sg.neut of Perseus.gen.sg
vasilevontos [for vasilevon].
ruling.gen.sg.neut.act
lish
‘The kin of Perseus remained ruling (in power).’ (Mal.28.24)
b. Apelθonta ce to riγonti
Pub

having-left.acc.sg.masc.act and the shivering.dat.sg.masc.act

synantisanti [for synantisanta].
met.dat.sg.masc.act
ins

‘When he left and he met the shivering one.’ (Leontios 48.8)

c. Eroso my cyrie mu pater,
am

be.healthy.2sg.imp. me.dat, lord my father,

eftyxunti my [for eftyxon].
enj

being.happy.dat.sg.masc.act me.dat
‘Be healthy, my lord father, being happy for my sake.’ (Rev.Eg.1919.201)
nB

Another potential symptom of a purely “verbal” re-interpretation of the participle is

the tendency to equate it with a finite verb, able to be coordinated with it (cf. Jannaris
Joh

1897: §2168b; Wolf 1911: 56; Frisk 1928; Schwyzer 1950: 407; Mandilaras 1973: 372;
Kavčič 2001, and esp. Cheila-Markopoulou 2003), (14).
(14) γrapsas ðe o Zakçeos. . . ce leγi.
-

having.written.nom.sg.masc.act and the Zacchaeus. . . and say.3sg.pres

‘Zacchaeus has written. . . and says.’ (Evang.Thomae B 7.1)
ofs

. Stage 4 – Middle Byzantine

pro

Morphology
The next step in the evolution is the spread of the [-onta] ending to masculine and
feminine forms. Early examples occur in inscriptions from Asia Minor (Klaffenbach
ted

1933). A search in inscriptional corpora12 shows that early Christian funerary inscrip-
tions standardly contain the formula mnimion/mnimorion/cymitirion ðiaferonta tu X
rec

(‘grave.neut belonging to X’, cf. Bees 1910). There are abundant attestations from
Corinth, Thessaly, Macedonia, Attica etc., evidence of the spread of the new neuter
cor

ending. In the inscriptions from Korykos (5th and 6th c., Keil & Wilhelm 1931), the fu-
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.11 (708-775)

From participles to gerunds 

nerary formula is feminine: θici/somatoθici ðiaferusa tu X (‘coffin.fem belonging.fem

to X’). In many cases, it has changed to θici ðiaferonta. These are the earliest consis-

y
tent13 attestations of the spread of [-onta] to the feminine. The earliest securely dated

pan
(9th c.) occurrence of the [-onta] suffix in an adverbial function with a masculine
noun occurs in the Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions (Beshevliev 1963), (15):

Com
(15) Is tis Plskas ton kampon menonta
at the Plska.gen the plain remaining.acc.sg.masc.act,
epyisen avlin.
make.3sg.aor court

ing
‘Remaining in the plain of Plska, he built a court.’ (56.5–7, 822 AD)

Syntax lish
Unfortunately, texts close to spoken language are insufficient in this period, and thus
do not allow reliable conclusions. The -onta form seems to be still mainly attribu-
Pub

tive; however, the adverbial usage of the gerund form has already appeared. The AG
participle form is still extensively used, mainly in temporal and causal function.
The passive participle is used mainly attributively, and often as a verbal comple-
ins

ment, being very frequent in perfect periphrases with the verbs “to be” and “to have”
(cf. Browning 1983: 32–34; Aerts 1965; Moser 1988 for an overview).
am

. Stage 5 – Later Byzantine (12th–15th c.)

enj

Morphology
The [-onta] gerund becomes established for all genders and cases. From the 14th c.
nB

onwards, a final -s is added to the ending, giving it the standard MG form [-ontas].14
This is in all likelihood an adverbial suffix, appearing in other adverbs as well, e.g.
Joh

totes ‘then’, potes ‘never’, tipotas ‘nothing’ (Hatzidakis 1934; Horrocks 1997: 229), and
not the [-s] suffix of the nominative (as in Schwyzer 1950: 410). The forms with and
without [-s] coexist in texts of the period, but distributional data are lacking.
-

This period sees an important evolution in the passive participle, the extension of
passive perfect forms to active morphology verbs with stative, inchoative, unaccusative
or unergative meaning, something that is maintained in MG (Tzartzanos 1989: 330–
ofs

331; Moser 1988: 145–152; Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1999: 25), (16):
(16) pinao → pinazmenos I am hungry
pro

troo → faγomenos I eat

nistazo → nistaγmenos I am sleepy
γonatizo → γonatizmenos I kneel
ted

kitrinizo → kitrinizmenos I grow yellow

rec

This was not the case in AG, except for a couple of isolated instances; it is a Medieval
evolution (details in Hatzidakis 1924, 1927) but there is no information on when these
cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.12 (775-850)

 Io Manolessou

participles first appeared. Examples do occur in the first vernacular medieval texts
(12th–13th c.), (17).

y
(17) Ipate, kinijisete opu iste maθimeni.

pan
go.2sg.imp hunt.2sg.imp where are.2pl learned.nom.pl.masc.pass
‘Go hunt where you used to.’ (Digenis E 1303)

Com
It also seems that passive participles with active meanings are a Balkan Sprachbund
phenomenon, appearing in some Balkan languages as well (cf. Lindstedt 2002); this
would point to a medieval datation of this evolution as well.15

ing
Syntax
The main function of the active participle is adverbial – complement usage is rare, and
lish
attributive almost non-existent. The active form can now be properly called a gerund,
as it is not an acceptable nominal modifier any more, (18):
Pub

(18) a. Tafta ipon estrafice jelonta

that saying.nom.sg.masc.act turned.3sg laughing.acc.sg.masc.act
pros ecinin.
ins

towards her
‘Having said that, he turned to her laughing.’ (Velthandros 861)
am

b. Utos exonta jinekan, to ðiceon orizi.

he having.acc.sg.masc.act wife, the law dictate.3sg
enj

‘If he has a wife, the law dictates. . . ’ (Assizai.146.15–6)

However, the complement usage is not yet extinct, (19):
nB

(19) a. Tote na iðes arxondises. . . kratunta ta

then sub see.2sg.aor noblewomen holding.acc.sg.masc.act the
Joh

peðia tus.
children-their
‘Then you could have seen. . . noblewomen holding their children.’
-

(War of Troy 1101)

b. Fenome pipraskonta ton emon ambelona.
appear.1sg.pres selling.acc.sg.masc.act the my vineyard
ofs

‘I declare that I am selling my vineyard.’ (Guillou, Messina 5, 1135 AD)

pro

The only attributive usages appear with the neuter (cf. the formula xorion to onta ce
ðiacimenon ‘the village being and located’ in S. Italian documents.16
The passive participle is mainly used adjectivally (details in Moser 1988: 229–235).
ted

The AG forms are still used side by side with the gerundival ones, their frequency
depending on the register of the text.
rec

With the loss of case from the gerund, the ancient type of “absolute” participles
(in the genitive or hanging nominative) disappear. However, vestiges of absolute par-
cor

ticiples in the genitive survive in conservative MG dialects, such as Cypriot and Cretan,
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.13 (850-900)

From participles to gerunds 

in the form of gerunds having genitive subjects (Menardos 1925b: 64; Giakoumaki
1993) (20):

y
(20) a. Poθanonta tu pappu mu, epiramen to

pan
dying.acc.sg.masc.act the grandfather.gen.sg. my, get.1pl.aor the
spitin.

Com
house
‘Upon my grandfather’s dying, we got the house.’
b. Kateontas mu inda muflusis ine, ðe du
knowing I.gen.sg. what bankrupt is, not he.gen.sg

ing
ðuðo ðanika.
give.1sg.pres loan
lish
‘Knowing what kind of a loser he is, I’m not giving him a loan.’
Alternatively, these examples of deviant dialectal syntax, unacceptable in standard MG,
Pub

could be viewed not as archaic survivals but as new independent evolutions; in this
connection, the parallel with the structures evolved in languages such as English or
Hebrew, where genitive subjects for indeclinable gerunds are the norm is quite striking.
However, it has to be noted that these constructions date at least to late MedG, as they
ins

can be found in works of the period, (21):

am

(21) a. I rijena i Alis. . . pijenonta

the queen.nom.sg.fem the Alice going.acc.sg.masc.act
enj

tis is ton Maçeran. . . eθelise na bi.

she.gen.sg to the Machairas want.3sg.aor sub enter.3sg.aor
nB

‘Queen Alice, upon her going to Machairas. . . wanted to enter.’

(Machairas 54.18)
b. Strefonta tus i mandatofori. . .
Joh

turning.acc.sg.masc.act they.gen.sg the envoys . . .

eðokan tas γrafas.
give.3pl.aor the letters
-

‘Upon their returning, the envoys gave the letters.’ (Machairas 94.36)
Apart from these dialectal constructions with the genitive, the gerund does have “ab-
ofs

solute” uses, in that its subject is not co-referential with that of the main clause, (22):
(22) a. ðiavonta γar enas ceros,
pro

having.passed.acc.sg.masc.act a time.nom.sg.masc
ejirisen ecinos.
ted

return.3sg.aor that.nom.sg
‘Some time having passed, he returned.’ (Chr.M.1048)
b. Ce lalonta ton loγon, ekaθarisen i
rec

and speaking.acc.sg.masc.act the word, clear.3sg.aor the

cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.14 (900-965)

 Io Manolessou

γlosa tis.
tongue.nom.sg hers

y
‘And as she spoke the word, her tongue was freed.’ (Machairas 68.21)

pan
This continues into the next period as well, and is maintained up to MG (details of this
usage in MG literature in Nakas 1985), cf. two examples from the 17th c., (23):

Com
(23) a. Ontas aftos peðion akomi, ton
being.acc.sg.masc.act he.nom.sg child still, he.acc.sg
estilen o pateras tu.
send.3sg.aor the father he.gen.sg

ing
‘When he was still a child, his father sent him. . . ’ (BGV III, 362.21)
b. Angaliazontas ena ðendro. . . me
lish ektipusan
embracing.acc.sg.masc.act a tree. . . I.acc.sg hit.3pl.imperf
e petre.
Pub

the rocks.nom.pl
‘As I was holding on to a tree. . . the rocks were hitting me.’ (BGV I, 331)

. Stage 6 – Post-Byzantine Greek

ins

Morphology
am

The next stage in the evolution of the gerund is the loss of tense. In the previous period
active participles could be formed both from aorist and present stems, (24):17
enj

(24) a. Staθonta kata anatolas anaγnose ce ipe

nB

having.stood towards east read.2sg.imp and tell.2sg.imp

ton.
he.acc.sg
Joh

‘First stand facing east, and then read and tell him.’ (War of Troy 561)
b. Iðontas tuto o ajios.
having.seen that the holy
-

‘The holy father, having seen that. . . ’ (Chr.M.18)

After the end of the MedG period, gerunds can only be formed from present stems,
ofs

except for the Greek dialects of S. Italy. In some of these dialects, aorist gerunds are
used only with the verb “to be” in perfect periphrases and the present stem is employed
pro

in all other functions (Katsoyannou 1995); however, in others the Aorist gerund is still
a living category (Karanastasis (1997: 144), (25).
(25) Vletsonta o čero, en ixa panta Luppiu.
ted

having.seen the weather, not have.1sg gone Lecce

‘If I had seen the weather, I wouldn’t have gone to Lecce.’
rec

As far as the passive participle is concerned, the Present form of the participle
cor

(-omenos) becomes gradually reduced in use, and in fact ceases to be an integrated

Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.15 (965-1030)

From participles to gerunds 

part of the participial system. Apart from a few analogically created popular forms
in -amenos and -umenos, (e.g. trexamenos ‘running’, petumenos ‘flying’), which have

y
almost exclusively attributive function,18 the present passive participle in MG is a

pan
formation re-introduced in the language via the kathareuousa (see below 2.7).
So the system of the participle, as presented in the first Grammar of MG, Nikolaos
Sofianos (ca.1544), is as follows (Papadopoulos 1977: 76):

Com
all the participles of the old Greeks are analysed with the finite verb of the tense
which the participle would be in, plus [the relative complementiser] opu. . . In all
active tenses. . . there is only one non-finite participle, γrafontas, kratontas. . . As

ing
for the passive verbs, the perfect participle has been maintained up to our time,
and it is inflected in the three genders, o γramenos, i γrameni, to γrameno. . .
lish
Around the 16th c., therefore, the active voice possessed only the active gerund in
[-ontas], while in the passive voice only the perfect participle survived. The situation
described by Sofianos is easily exemplified by a recent study on the transposition of AG
Pub

participles in 17th c. vernacular translations of the lives of Aesop (Karla 2002). In this
case, the large majority of participles of the original, post-classical, text have been re-
placed by finite clauses or adjectives, and only 11% of them have been retained (either
ins

as archaic declinable participles or as gerunds).

am

Syntax
The MG situation, with the active gerund having predominantly adverbial usage and
enj

the passive participle predominantly adjectival, has been reached.

nB

. Stage 7 – Modern Greek

Morphology
Joh

Standard MG sees a new regularisation/filling out of the participial and gerundival

paradigm. Side-by-side with the “present” gerund, a periphrastic perfect form is cre-
-

ated, using the gerund of the auxiliary verb “to have” along with a perfective infinitive
form (e.g. exontas γrapsi). There are no data concerning the date of appearance and
the spread of this new formation (Nakas 1991: 178), but older Grammars (Triantafyl-
ofs

lidis 1941: 373; Tzartzanos 1989: 339) recognise its innovative, “artificial”, status, and
statistical analyses of participial usage in MG (Iordanidou 1985; Rydå 1988) show that
it is very rare; some Grammars (including school grammars) do not mention it at all.
pro

In the passive domain, the present participle is re-introduced. This is generally ac-
cepted to be a feature of kathareuousa, and not a direct inheritance from AG (Nakas
ted

1991: 182–187). Earlier Grammars explicitly state that it is an element foreign to “de-
motic”, and statistical investigations also show that its use is limited. Furthermore, it is
far from productive; thus, verbs of modern/demotic origin rarely if ever have present
rec

participles (e.g. *lavonomenos, *viðonomenos, *leronomenos, *spazomenos) and verbs

which have both a kathareuousa and a demotic variant possess a present participle
cor

only for the first (liomenos vs. *linomenos, enðiomenos vs. *dinomenos, feromenos vs.
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.16 (1030-1095)

 Io Manolessou

*fernomenos etc.). The passive present participle cannot therefore be considered as fully
integrated into the verbal paradigm, on a par with any other verbal form.

y
Another evolution belonging to the MG period is the appearance of a periphrastic

pan
passive gerund, formed by the gerund of the verb to have and a perfective passive in-
finitive (e.g. exontas γrafθi). This is yet another new and not extensively used form,
frequently absent from Grammars of MG because of its rarity. The evolution of this

Com
form is one more indication of the non-verbal character of the monolectic passive par-
ticiple: it is this new periphrastic formation, and not the inherited “perfect participle”,
that unambiguously expresses the categories of “perfect tense” and/or “perfect aspect”,
as well as of “passive voice”. But it is a gerundival, and not a participial form, showing

ing
once more that verbal and nominal features are incompatible in MG participles.

Syntax
lish
This topic is extensively treated in Tsoulas (1996), Tsimpli (2000), Sitaridou and
Haidou (2002), Moser (2002) and Tsokoglou and Kleidi (2002) and will therefore not
Pub

be developed in any detail here.

The MG gerund has only adverbial meaning and cannot appear in argument po-
sitions.19 Its temporal interpretation is dependent on the meaning of the verb and the
ins

general context (cf. Tsimpli 2000; Moser 2002 for details). Contrast (26a) with (26b):
am

(26) a. Efije klinontas ðinata tin porta.

leave.3sg.aor shutting loudly the door
enj

‘He left, banging the door loudly.’ (anteriority)

b. Klinontas tin porta, iðe tin efimeriða sto katofli (simultaneity)
shutting the door, saw the newspaper at the threshold
nB

“As he was shutting the door, he saw the newspaper on the threshold.”
Furthermore, the gerund is often considered exclusively subject oriented, although
Joh

it is possible to find gerund subject which are: (a) null and non-co-referential with
the main clause subject in the case of impersonal or arbitrary/generic reference (27a)
(b) co-referential with another term in the clause (27b and c) “nominative abso-
-

lute” subjects different to that of the main clause, which must always appear after the
gerund (27c):
ofs

(27) a. Troγontas erçete i oreksi.

eating come.3sg.pres the appetite.nom.sg
pro

‘The appetite comes with eating.’

b. Telionontas to Panepistimio, ton pirane sto strato.
finishing the University, he.acc.sg take.3pl.aor to the army
ted

‘When he finished the University, he was drafted in the Army.’

c. Fevγontas i ðaskala, jelasan ta peðjia.
rec

leaving the teacher.nom.sg, laugh.3pl.aor the children

‘As the teacher left, the children laughed.’
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.17 (1095-1174)

From participles to gerunds 

As for the passive participle, there is a relative consensus that it has a number of
nominal properties which make its distinction from a simple adjective difficult. These

y
include (Moser 1988: 167–168; Anagnostopoulou (2001: 2–4):

pan
a. it can occur in pre-nominal position as noun modifiers
b. it can have comparative and superlative

Com
c. it can be conjoined (with ce (‘and’)) with true adjectives
d. it can occur as predicate with verbs like fenome (‘look’), mnjiazo (look like’) etc.
e. the agent can be incorporated, e.g. iliomavrismenos (with suntan)
f. it can be intensified with para-(‘too’) , e.g. paramavrismenos (with too much

ing
suntan)
g. it can form adverbials with -a, e.g. θlimenos > θlimena (‘sad’ > ’sadly’)
h. its derivation is irregular, i.e. several active morphology verbs form it, and several
lish
passive form verbs do not.

The passive participial clauses quoted in Tsimpli (2000: 159) are no different from
Pub

other adjective small clauses, which attribute a “temporary” property to the modified
noun. Thus, compare the sets of sentences in (28a, b) and (29a, b):
ins

(28) a. Me ðemena ta çerjia ðen borusa na

with tied the hands neg can.1sg.imperf sub
am

ksisto.
scratch.1sg.aor.pass
enj

‘With my hands tied, I couldn’t scratch myself.’

b. Me elefθera pja ta çerjia, boresa na
with free at.last the hands can.1sg.aor sub
nB

ksisto.
scratch.1sg.aor.pass
Joh

‘With my hands free at last, I managed to scratch myself.’

(29) a. Kinijimenos / ðjoγmenos o Jianis, anangastike na
hunted / kicked.out the John, force.3sg.aor.pass sub
-

fiji.
leave.3sg.aor
ofs

‘John, hunted / kicked out, was forced to leave.’

b. Etimos jia ola o Jianis, arniθice na fiji.
ready for everything the John, refuse.3sg.aor sub leave.3sg.aor
pro

‘John, ready for anything, refused to flee.’

So the syntactic roles of the passive participle are identical to those of the adjective.20
ted

. Summary of evolution

rec

On the basis of the above, the evolution of the Greel participial system can be sum-
cor

marised as follows:
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.18 (1174-1221)

 Io Manolessou

1. The active participle already showed diminished gender agreement from AG

times, but maintained its functionality until the first centuries AD. The first sign of

y
evolution is syntactic, namely the increase in absolute constructions in the Koine

pan
period, an indication that the agreement mechanism of the participle with the ma-
trix clause is breaking down. Around the 4th c. the first morphological effects of
change become evident, with the reduction in the inflectional system represented

Com
by the innovative neuter ending -onta (arising probably from collocations with
the accusative of the passive participle). This spreads to masculine and feminine
nouns during the 6th–8th c., as testified by inscriptional evidence. The next step
in the evolution, after the loss of agreement, is the loss of tense (in reality of the

ing
imperfective/perfective distinction), occurring around the 14th c. The addition of
the adverbial -s suffix marks the final and definitive reanalysis of the gerund as an
lish
adverb. The MG gerund has neither Agreement, nor Tense – however, it is in the
process of acquiring a new aspectual distinction.
2. The passive participle maintained its full nominal agreement system throughout
Pub

the history of Greek. The development went rather in the way of loss of ver-
bal characteristics. Thus, Koine times see a reduction in the types of participle
available (loss of final, concessive, causal etc. participles), as well as of the subordi-
ins

nating conjunctions/complementisers introducing them. Also, the Tenses become

reduced, with the loss first of the Future and the Aorist, and later of the Present. In
am

later stages, the uses of the participle become further reduced, until it is reserved
only for attributive functions. At some point in the Medieval Period, the category
enj

of Voice is lost as well, since Passive participles begin to be formed also from active
morphology verbs with unaccusative or unergative meaning.
nB

Thus it is crucial misconception that “the active participle changed and disappeared”,
while “the passive participle did not change and was maintained”. In fact, the passive
Joh

participle has changed; an indication of this are the numerous studies examining the
similarities and differences between “passive participles” and adjectives, and propos-
ing criteria of differentiation, e.g. Laskaratou and Philippaki (1984), Setatos (1985),
-

Sklavounou (2000), Anagnostopoulou (2001). The evolution examined here is not a

change affecting one part of the participle system while leaving the other intact, but a
restructuring of the whole system, affecting both parts in different ways.
ofs
pro

. Parallel evolution in other languages

The change from participle to gerund is a phenomenon not unique to Greek, but cross-
ted

linguistically well attested. In the words of Haspelmath (1995: 17):

rec

Converbs [=nonfinite verb forms functioning as adverbial modifiers] seem to

arise from two main types of sources: (a) . . . verbal nouns which have become
independent from their original paradigm; and (b) . . . participles which lost their
cor

capability for agreement.

Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.19 (1221-1283)

From participles to gerunds 

As will be shown below, process (b) appears in Slavic, Baltic and Romance, where,
independently, the active present participle has become a gerund, as in Greek.

y
pan
. Romance

The historical syntax of the Romance languages displays a pattern very similar to

Com
Greek: the indeclinable gerund acquires all the verbal functions of the active participle,
and the latter becomes a pure adjective, outside the verbal system (Harris 1978: 199–
203). More specifically: Classical Latin possessed a triple opposition between (a) an
agreeing passive gerundive, (b) a non-agreeing active gerund, similar to a verbal noun

ing
and (c) an agreeing, active present participle. The gerundive disappeared completely,
and so did three out of the four cases of the noun-like gerund (genitive, dative and
lish
accusative). The ablative case of the gerund, however, originally denoting only in-
strumental notions such as manner, accompaniment etc., gained ground widely, and
Pub

rivalled the present participle as an adverbial modifier to the main verb. Already in
Classical Latin it was possible to find present participles co-coordinated with ablative
gerunds (Kühner-Stegman 1966: 753), (30).
ins

(30) incendium. . . in edita assurgens et rursus

fire. . . in high climbing.neut.nom.sg.pres.act and then
am

inferiora populando
lower devastating.ger.abl
enj

‘The fire. . . climbing first to the high places and then devastating the lower
ones.’ (Tacitus 15.38)
nB

Later Latin sees: (a) the reduction of the active present participle to adjectival uses (b)
the extension of absolute constructions, even when the subject is a term of the clause
Joh

(c) the use of the participle as a finite verb (three developments identical to Greek)
and (d) the passing over of the adverbial uses of the participle to the ablative of the
gerund.21 For example, in Medieval Spanish translations of Latin texts, the participle,
-

especially in absolute usages, is often glossed by the gerund (Muñío Valverde 1995: 12).
ignorans: glosed as non sapiendo
ignoring-masc.sg.nom.pres.act: glossed as not knowing-gerund.abl
ofs

In French, the gerund and the participle coalesced morphologically, to give one form,
pro

ending in -ant, which is used either indeclinably as a gerund or declinably as an

adjectival participle, (31):
(31) Je viens en chantant (‘I come singing)’
ted

La femme chantante vient (‘The singing woman comes’)

rec

In the other Western Romance languages, Spanish and Portuguese, the two forms are
still morphologically separate, but (a) the gerund (-ndo) has both retained its original
gerundival functions (as a manner adverbial) and taken over all the verbal functions
cor

of the present participle as well, including all occurrences with periphrastic verbal
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.20 (1283-1340)

 Io Manolessou

paradigms; and (b) the still agreeing present participle (-nte) is wholly adjectival, lying
outside the verbal system proper and unable to express any circumstantial notion.

y
pan
. Slavic and Baltic

The Russian gerund (deeprichastiye) evolved out of the active present participle, and

Com
is, in the modern language a tenseless and nonfinite form (Babby & Franks 1998). First
traces of this development appear already in Old Church Slavonic translations of the
Gospels, and become more frequent in later texts (Vaillant 1964: 252–253).
Examining the Bulgarian participle, Hult (1991: 100) offers an overview of the par-

ing
ticiple evolution in the Slavic languages. According to him, the gerund of Russian,
Czech and Slovenian goes back to the Old Church Slavonic masculine/neuter nomina-
lish
tive form of the present active participle, while the gerund of Ukrainian, Byelorus-
sian, Polish, Slovak, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian to the oblique case stem of the
Pub

same form.
Taube (1981: 128–129) describes the environments where the breach of agreement
between subject and participle, is most frequent in Old Russian texts (chronicles of
the 15th c. AD. According to him, it is exceptional when the participle has adjectival
ins

(attributive) function, or is used as a predicate with a copula or an auxiliary verb; it is

occasional when the participle is absolute and it is regular when the participle has an
am

adverbial function.
Although the Lithuanian participial system is more complex than that of other ex-
enj

amined languages, the general evolution is similar: a language which did not originally
possess gerund forms develops them out of active participles with adverbial mean-
nB

ing.22 As in Greek, the change starts from active neuter forms in the accusative, later
spreading to masculine and feminine nouns and pronouns (Ambrazas 1990: 253).
So the developments in the participle of other languages bear a hitherto unnoticed,
Joh

but striking similarity to Greek: in the environments where the participle has a more
strongly “verbal” meaning (i.e. imparts a temporal, causal etc. sense) it tends to lose
its nominal characteristics and become a pure indeclinable adverbial, whereas in cases
-

where its attributive function is strong it verges towards total loss of verbal features.23
ofs

. The evolution from participle to gerund

pro

. Introduction
ted

The evolution described in Sections 2 and 3 constitutes a potentially fruitful testing

ground for theories of syntactic change. It involves a radical change in a specific syn-
tactic category – a change which takes place over a long period of time, appears in
rec

several languages, has not up to now been sufficiently investigated, and does not fall
under the heading of grammaticalisation, the kind of change most commonly exam-
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.21 (1340-1401)

From participles to gerunds 

ined in diachronic syntax. However, the restricted amount of interest it has generated
is, to a certain extent, a limiting factor for its in-depth investigation.

y
More specifically, as discussed in 2.1, there are no studies offering syntactic ac-

pan
counts of the complex AG participial system or the quantitative data necessary for
them, and even the comparatively simpler MG gerund is an object of controversy
(see Section 5); thus, neither the beginning nor the end of the process are at all se-

Com
curely established. Furthermore, none of the well-studied modern languages possesses
a participial system similar to the AG one, and so the analyses covering the partici-
ples of other languages cannot apply to AG without considerable further elaboration.
Moreover, current analyses of participles tend to focus on the question either of in-

ing
ternal participial structure or of participles in auxiliary verb structures; thus they have
very little to say on topics that are crucial for the evolution under investigation, which
lish
involves mainly participles in adverbial function.
Pub

. Previous accounts

The standard interpretation of the evolution of the Greek active participle is based on
morphological considerations. According to this view (cf. Jannaris 1897: 206; Dieterich
ins

1898: 206; Horrocks 1997: 122–124), the active participle, which belongs to the com-
plex AG 3rd (consonant-stem) declension and shows widely differing endings accord-
am

ing to person and tense, has limited learnability, in contrast to the passive participle,
which belongs the much simpler 2nd declension (o-stem). The “unwieldy” active
enj

form, after going through a period of instability, as attested by numerous errors of

agreement in papyri, ends up in total indeclinability, whereas the passive form is
nB

maintained throughout the history of Greek.

There are a number of problems with this account. First, as shown in 2.2, the
papyrological data are not conclusive: errors of agreement occur also with 2nd de-
Joh

clension forms, and are much more common when the writer is not a native speaker
of Greek – so the picture of declensional instability presented in Grammars of papyri
cannot be relied upon without systematic textual investigations. However, the main
-

difficulty with this account is that “indeclinability” is not an option for Greek, whose
overall system depends on overt case differentiation; in cases of “difficult” declension
ofs

patterns, the evolution is metaplasm, i.e. analogical re-formation according to a sim-

pler inflectional pattern. Thus, as Hatzidakis (1928: 635) notes, the corresponding 3rd
declension nt-stem nouns such as drako:n, gero:n, Kharo:n, have had a totally different
pro

evolution from the participle: they have not lost inflection, but have been reformed to
1st or 2nd declension ones (ðrakos, γeros/γerontas, Xaros), and the same goes for sub-
ted

stantivised participles as well (arkho:n, patho:n > arxontas, paθos). And generally, the
whole of the AG 3rd, consonant-stem, noun declension, has changed over to a simpler
vowel-stem paradigm in MG, apart from certain subclasses (cf. Seiler 1958).
rec

Similarly, 3rd declension adjectives with comparable inflection patterns (e.g. s- or

r-stems) also show break-down of agreement (cf. Gignac 1981: 138–141) in the papyri,
cor

without ever ending up in indeclinability. These too are re-formed analogically, fol-
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.22 (1401-1466)

 Io Manolessou

lowing the vowel stem declensions (Browning 1983: 78), e.g. melas > melanos, ale:the:s
> aliθinos etc. In other words, the process of indeclinability affects only participles, and

y
not nouns and adjectives of similar inflectional patterns.

pan
The morphology-based interpretation of the participle > gerund evolution has
the added disadvantage that it cannot account for two main claims made in this pa-
per, namely that: (i) this evolution is not an exclusively Greek phenomenon, but, as

Com
demonstrated in Section 2, is to be found in several languages, thus precluding a
Greek-specific causation and (ii) the parallel developments in the domain of the pas-
sive participle, i.e. the evolution participle > adjective (crucially, also not an exclusively
Greek phenomenon) show that we are dealing with a larger change, which affects the

ing
whole participial and agreement system.
lish
. Origins of the change
Pub

If one rejects the standard view of gerund evolution, an alternative interpretation,

not involving a direct morphological trigger and taking into consideration the cross-
linguistic extent of the phenomenon is desirable. In this section, we will pursue a
potential alternative interpretation, based on the syntactic mechanism of control in
ins

participial subjects.
Some initial assumptions on the analysis of participles must be made:
am

– All participles must have a subject of their own, due to theta-role considerations.
– This subject may be a full lexical noun phrase (in the case, e.g., of absolute partici-
enj

ples) but is usually a null phrase (in the case of conjoined adverbial participles).
When the subject of the participle is null, it is standardly assumed to belong to the
nB

category PRO (cf. Kester 1994; Alexandrova 1995), i.e. it is a null pronoun appear-
ing as the subject of non-finite forms, which acquires reference through a control
Joh

mechanism.
– Participles agree with their subjects. Gender and number features are transmit-
ted from the subject to the participle. Case, however, depends on the syntactic
-

function of the participle.

On the basis of the above, the following analysis of AG participles can be attempted:
ofs

Participles have three main functions, as described in 2.1:

I. Attributive modifiers, functioning as adjectives or relative clauses.
pro

II. Complements of verbs, functioning as non-finite complement clauses.

III. Adverbial modifiers, functioning as clausal adjuncts.
ted

In case (I) participial syntax is relatively simple, as participles appear in the same syn-
tactic positions as adjectives. Presumably, adjectival participles are located in some
functional specifier within the noun phrase (DP). They therefore acquire their φ-
rec

features in the same way as adjectives do, from spec-head agreement with the head
noun. Attributive participles have a PRO subject, which is always co-indexed with the
cor

head of the nominal projection DP where the participle occurs. So: adnominal partici-
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.23 (1466-1533)

From participles to gerunds 

ples obtain number, gender and case from the head of the nominal projection within
which they are.

y
In case (II), things are straightforward again: participial complements function

pan
like infinitival ones, with the added proviso that they agree with their subject. Presum-
ably, participles are complements of VP, and acquire case from the main verb, (32).

Com
(32) a. De:los e:mi erkhomenos.
obvious be.1sg coming.nom.sg.masc.pass
‘I am seen to be coming.’
b. Eidon auton erkhomenon.

ing
see.1sg.aor he.acc.sg coming.acc.sg.masc.pass
‘I saw him coming.’
c. E:kusa autu: erkhomenu:. lish
hear.1sg.aor he.gen.sg coming.gen.sg.masc.pass
‘I heard him coming.’
Pub

Gender and number on the participle do not originate from the main verb, but from
the participial subject. Case on the participial subject can be interpreted as originating
either from the participle, once it has acquired it from the matrix verb, or as in regular
ins

raising/ECM constructions, where the participial subject gets case from the main verb
as well. So, in case II, participles acquire two f-features from their subject (gender and
am

number) and one from the verbal projection of which they are complements (case). If
the participial subject is PRO, it can be controlled and co-indexed since it occurs in a
enj

c-commanded position.
On the other hand, construction (III), namely, participles functioning as adverbial
nB

modifiers presents a number of difficulties. Most analyses agree that adverbial par-
ticiples and gerunds are clausal adjuncts (see e.g. Kester 1994; Pires to appear). This
follows from their free position in the clause, but also from semantic considerations:
Joh

what they modify by their adverbial meaning (cause, consequence, aim, concession
etc.) is a verbal action and not a noun. This becomes obvious in sentences containing
sequences of participles, which all refer to the same subject, but which modify different
-

verbal actions, (33):

(33) a. Eteteleute:kei pharmakon pio:n
ofs

die.3sg.pluperf medicine having.drunk.nom.sg.masc

pyresso:n.
pro

having.fever.nom.sg.masc
‘He died after having drunk a medicine, because he had a fever.’
(X.Anab.6.4.11)
ted

b. Hois pa:si khro:menoi krea

which.dat.pl all.dat.pl using.nom.pl.masc meats.acc.pl
rec

epsontes e:sthion.
roasting.nom.pl.masc eat.3pl.imperf
cor

‘Using all the said wood, roasting meat, they ate.’ (X.Anab.2.1.6)
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.24 (1533-1590)

 Io Manolessou

Under this analysis, adverbial participles occupy a peripheral position within the verbal
projection of the main clause, the same as adverbs do. This would be either an external

y
adjunct to CP, VP or IP, or a special functional projection hosting the relevant adverbial

pan
function (cause, manner etc.) – cf. 4.3 below for discussion. Such a peripheral position,
however, entails difficulties for the establishment of agreement and control between
the participle and the matrix term to which it refers.24

Com
“Conjoined” participles have a PRO subject, co-referential with a term in the ma-
trix clause, usually the subject but not always. However, relationship between PRO and
this term must work on a very loose basis: the structural position of PRO is such that
it does not allow any formal mechanism of control or licensing – as argued above, the

ing
adverbial participle will be in the specifier of projection functioning as an adverbial
adjunct: it is neither within a nominal projection, nor in a complement position. Fur-
lish
thermore, since the participle displays case, gender and number features, which are in
fact the overt indications of its co-reference with a matrix term, one would have to
assume that they have somehow been transmitted from this matrix term to the par-
Pub

ticipial subject, and thence on to the participle. There is no other source for them, as
adverbial adjuncts are not case-marked positions and as gender and number have to be
identical with those of the matrix term. Now, assuming that participial subject is PRO,
ins

which by definition carries null case, and invariable gender and number features (3rd
sing. masc. in the case of arbitrary reference) the agreement mechanism of adverbial
am

participles becomes even more complex.25

On the other hand, absolute adverbial participles do not present any problems:
enj

they obtain gender and number from their subjects, which are full lexical noun
phrases. And they acquire case (genitive) by default, so their position within the ma-
nB

trix clause is immaterial. No relationship with the matrix clause is established; the
absolute participle is completely independent and its agreement mechanisms are lo-
cal. From the perspective of agreement, therefore, the conjoined adverbial participle
Joh

is a marked and complex construction, possessing a much simpler equivalent in the

absolute participle.
Crucially, as discussed in Sections 1 and 2, the history of both Greek and the Ro-
-

mance languages displays a growing preference for the absolute over the conjoined
construction. This can be interpreted, following Roberts and Roussou (2002), as a
normal result of the make-up of the human language learning device, which is con-
ofs

servative and has an inherent tendency for unmarked representations (marked in the
sense of less economical, requiring additional movement or realisation of features). In
pro

the presence of two equivalent constructions, one marked26 and one unmarked, di-
achronic change will go in the direction of the unmarked option, and in the presence
ted

of less and less evidence to the contrary, the simpler structure will be attributed to all
instantiations of the construction. In this particular case, the radical increase in ab-
solute participles will in the end limit the input evidence for agreement between the
rec

participle and the matrix clause to such a degree that this will be in the end unlearnable
to next generations of language learners.
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.25 (1590-1656)

From participles to gerunds 

So, in the case of the participle > gerund evolution, language change can be seen
to be inherently connected with language acquisition (for this cf. Kroch 2001). The

y
change will not affect passive participles in the same way, as, due to their resulta-

pan
tive meaning (Haspelmath 1994), they will much more frequently modify nouns than
verbs, and will thus occur much more rarely in adverbial function.

Com
. From participle to gerund

In more detail, the evolution from participle to gerund can be viewed as a three-stage
process. In the first, initial, stage, adverbial participles have an agreement requirement

ing
with a term in the main clause, usually the subject but not necessarily so. The al-
ternative of the absolute participle exists in AG, even when the participial subject is
lish
co-referential to a term in the clause; so a “more economical” alternative was already
in place in the language.
Pub

In step II, the agreement requirement with the matrix clause is dropped, some-
thing which is mirrored in the radical increase of absolute participles. In this step, the
participial clause is independent, and thus equivalent to an infinitival or subordinate
clause. In this connection, one should mention the view of Mandilaras (1973: 352–
ins

373), according to which the indeclinability of the active participle is caused by its
confusion with the infinitive. He provides a considerable amount of evidence for an
am

interchange of functions between infinitive and participle in the non-literary papyri.

Examples include prepositional participles instead of prepositional infinitives, (34a),
enj

participles as complements of verbs which in AG were construed with the infinitive,

(34b), and infinitive as complement of verbs which in AG were construed with the
nB

participle, (34c):
(34) a. Dia to eme metrio:s ekhonta.
Joh

for the.acc.sg.neut i.acc.sg mediocrely having.masc.sg.acc.act

‘Because I am in mediocre health.’ (P. Lips.108.5–6, 3rd c. AD)
b. Sy ikanos e:
-

you.nom.sg capable.nom.sg.masc be.2sg

dioiko:n.
managing.masc.sg.nom.act
ofs

‘You are capable of managing.’ (P. Cair.Zen.59060.11, 257 BC)

c. Tynkhaneis ekhein.
pro

happen.2sg have.inf.pres
‘You happen to have.’ (P. Grenf.ii.57.8, 168 AD)
ted

Of course, none of the “interchanged” constructions appearing in the papyri are found
later, i.e. articular participles are very rare,27 and there are no verbs which prefer the
rec

participial over the AG infinitival syntax; however, there are several verbs which prefer
the infinitival over the AG participial syntax (cf. Jannaris 1897: 493), something which
cor

goes hand-in-hand with the general reduction in the uses of the participle. What is
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.26 (1656-1722)

 Io Manolessou

more, the infinitive was also undergoing change and weakening in the same period.
Especially the declarative infinitive (corresponding to oti (‘that’) complement clauses),

y
had all but disappeared by the start of the medieval period, when the first instances of

pan
the gerund appear (cf. Jannaris 1897: 572–574; Mackridge 1997). Thus the confusion of
participle and infinitive cannot have been the cause, but rather the result of the evolu-
tion of the former towards the gerund. An additional indication of the break-down of

Com
agreement between the matrix and the participial clause are the multiple examples of
faulty agreement of the participle with the constituent immediately adjacent to it, and
an indication of the more clearly verbal status of the participle is its use in conjunction
with finite form (for both phenomena cf. Section 2.3).

ing
Step III. If the participle is a non-finite verbal element independent from the ma-
trix clause, it need have no agreement at all – therefore, its form becomes fixed, in
lish
the form most frequently used. It is here that morphological considerations can play a
role: not to motivate the freezing of a form, but to explain which particular form it will
take. In this respect, one should bear in mind the evolutions described in Section 3 for
Pub

Romance and Slavic: in each case, it was a different case-form of the present active par-
ticiple that constituted the origin of the gerund; in some cases it was the nominative,
in others the oblique form.
ins

The -onta ending had by then become the most frequent one because: (a) it was an
accusative ending, and the accusative was by far the most common case, as it became
am

more and more the default oblique case, due to the loss of the dative and the restriction
of the genitive to adnominal usages (Horrocks 1997: 122); (b) conjoined participles, if
enj

oblique, would almost never be co-referent with a non-primary term in the clause,
such as an indirect object or a participial complement (cf. Whaley 1990); and (c) the
nB

-onta ending had spread to the neuter singular as well, as described in 2.3.
On a more speculative level, considering also the fact that the consonant-stem 3rd
declension was passing over to the a-stem 1st declension due to its formal identity in
Joh

the accusative case (cf. Hatzidakis 1892: 379–380), even the participial genitive ending,
could, at some point in the Medieval period, have passed from -ontos to -onta, which
would then be the unique oblique ending of a 1st declension form. The example below,
-

could, e.g., be interpreted as an absolute participle in the genitive case, (35):

(35) Sy autos panta hyperthemenos e:ke, ekeinu: to
ofs

you.nom.sg self everything putting.aside come, he.gen.sg the

son ergon poiu:nta.
pro

your work doing.acc.sg.masc.act

‘Put everything aside and come yourself, letting him do your work.’
(P.Oxy.120, 4th c. AD)
ted

Another potential piece of evidence for the existence of absolute genitive participles in
[-onta] is the existence of gerunds with genitive subjects in MedG and contemporary
rec

MG dialects such as Cypriot and Cretan, as in (20) and (21).

A further contributing factor in the preference for the -onta oblique ending must
cor

have been the final vowel -a, which is an ending characteristic of adverbs: superlative
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.27 (1722-1766)

From participles to gerunds 

(arista ‘best’, takhista ‘fastest’) and irregular adverbs (mala ‘well’) end in -a since AG
times, and this form becomes generalised for all adverbs in the early MedG period.28

y
The external similarity of the oblique masculine (and neuter) participle to an adverb

pan
must have promoted the possibility of its being interpreted as an indeclinable adverbial
modifier (for this view cf. Hatzidakis 1928 and Horrocks 1997: 123). The adverbial
interpretation of the participle was strengthened by the fact that, as was discussed in

Com
2.2, it is possible, since the time of the Koine, to observe a gradual limitation in the uses
of the participle – though not in its frequency –, as some of its meanings are gradually
replaced by finite subordinate clauses.29 In any case, the adverbial use is considered,
in standard Grammars, to be the main function of the participle even from AG times

ing
(Schwyzer 1950: 387).
Summing up, the change from participle to gerund could be interpreted, for all
lish
the languages involved, as originating in the domain of the adverbial participle: this
was first analysed as an independent participial clause without reference to the matrix
clause, fulfilling its agreement requirement in a local domain, and then as a non-finite,
Pub

exclusively verbal non-agreeing element, fixed in the most frequently appearing form.
ins

. Implications for syntactic theory

am

The above account of the consecutive stages in the evolution of the gerund and the
motivation behind it have repercussions on our conception of gerundival and particip-
enj

ial syntax. The discussion does not aim to innovate in current views of Verb Phrase
structure. Rather, it aims to tabulate the implications of the historical research con-
nB

ducted above for the extant proposals concerning the representation of MG gerunds
(Rivero 1994; Tsoulas 1996; Tsimpli 2000; Sitaridou & Haidou 2002), and to constitute
a stepping stone for further theoretical elaboration on this topic.
Joh

. The status and external syntax of MG gerunds

-

The structural position standardly assumed for gerund clauses is that of adjuncts to
one of the verbal projections of the matrix clause, e.g. VP or IP (Tsoulas 1996: 445;
ofs

Spyropoulos & Philippaki 2001: 157; Pires to appear) or even CP (Tsokoglou & Kleidi
2002: 279). On the other hand, an analysis of gerunds as adverbial modifiers in line
pro

with current analyses of adverbs such as Alexiadou (1997) allows one to capture
the connection between gerunds and adverbs on the one hand, and participles and
adjectives on the other in a more systematic way.
ted

According to Alexiadou (1997), adverbs and adjectives are in reality manifesta-

tions of one and the same category, with standard similarities and differences. The
rec

adverbial ending -ly (or MG -a, -os) is in reality an agreement marker with the verb,
equivalent to the case endings of the adjective, which mark agreement with the noun.
A corresponding situation obtains with gerunds and participles in MG, i.e. the de-
cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.28 (1766-1829)

 Io Manolessou

scription proposed for the nominal domain can also apply to the verbal one: the
participle can be informally termed as the “verbal adjective”, and the gerund as the

y
“verbal adverb”, with the ending -ontas being interpreted as an agreement marker

pan
with the verb.
In more detail: Adjectives and adverbs form a single category. The category A can
be realised either as an adjective or an adverb, depending on its location. Thus, if it is

Com
located in a verbal Specifier (Tense, Aspect etc., according to meaning) it is an Adverb.
If it is located in a nominal functional Specifier (which hosts the agreement features
of the noun phrase), it is an adjective. Both realisations of A enter into Spec-Head
relationships with the corresponding lexical head, V or N, resulting in the first case in

ing
the licensing of the adverbial ending and in the other in agreement with the noun.
Correspondingly, gerunds and participles also form a single category, which will
lish
differ in realisation according to its location. Thus, location in a verbal specifier means
that the element is a gerund, whereas location in a nominal specifier means that the
element is an attributive participle. Both realisations of this category will enter into
Pub

Spec-Head relationships with the corresponding lexical head, resulting, in the case
of participles, in full nominal Agreement, and for gerunds in the checking of the
agreement ending -ontas.
ins

On the contrary, the AG-type adverbial participles are (as discussed in Section
3) located in a verbal specifier, where a Spec-Head relationship with a lexical head
am

is unavailable, require a more complex mechanism to ensure agreement. As far as

language history is concerned, the developments can be seen as a re-analysis of the
enj

adverbial participle, interpreted as a verbal element not requiring agreement, an evo-

lution which avoids a situation where a lexical category has mixed nominal and verbal
nB

characteristics.

. The internal structure of Passive Participles

Joh

There is doubt in the literature concerning whether Passive Participles are derived
syntactically or lexically (cf. mainly Laskaratou & Philippaki 1984). In the former
-

case, there is uncertainty concerning the number and nature of functional projec-
tions constituting them. The historical overview, showing as it does a drive towards
ofs

an unambiguously nominal status, argues in favour of the lexical derivation of Passive

Participles in certain cases, i.e. without an articulated internal verbal structure, since
there is clear evidence of the loss of all verbal categories (Tense, Aspect, Voice).
pro

Thus, in the case of the so-called “lexical” passives (for terminology and criteria of
differentiation cf. Anagnostopoulou 2001), all functional verbal projections, includ-
ted

ing Voice should be absent. This is evidenced by the existence of unaccusative and
unergative “perfect participles”, which, crucially, started to appear only in the Medieval
period, when the split between the “verbal” gerund and the “nominal” participle took
rec

place.30
However, since not all perfect participles have the same stative interpretation, a
cor

more articulated verbal structure, which includes a Voice and an Aspect Phrase, should
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.29 (1829-1886)

From participles to gerunds 

perhaps still be accepted for other instantiations of this form, along the lines proposed
by Anagnostopoulou (2001), mainly for cases where the participle is accompanied by

y
a Prepositional Phrase expressing the agent or an adverb expressing manner/time, in

pan
i.e. environments where the verbal, eventive reading of the participle is still possible.

. The internal structure of gerunds

Com
Taking the verb phrase from the top, the historical evidence speaks clearly against
the postulation of a CP projection for gerunds. This was already proposed by
Tsimpli (2000: 143–144), reviewing previous literature on the topic (Tsoulas 1996 and

ing
Philippaki-Warburton 1995). Her arguments were purely synchronic, namely that
gerunds (a) cannot be introduced by conjunctions (b) disallow operator movement
lish
(e.g. extraction of wh-phrases)31 (c) resist nominalisation and (d) do not provide a
landing position for topics and dislocated elements. Apart from these crucial argu-
Pub

ments, the historical data also supports the rejection of a CP projection. As described
in Section 1.1 above, AG participles were frequently introduced by complementisers,
i.e., causal, final etc. conjunctions. This possibility gradually disappeared, and thus we
have not only theoretical but also tangible evidence of the loss of the CP projection.32
ins

Furthermore, if one adopts the proposal of interpretation of gerunds as adverbs along

the lines proposed by Alexiadou (1997), there is no need to posit a CP projection
am

responsible for its semantic interpretation (temporal, causal etc.) thanks to a covert
operator, as Tsoulas (1996) suggests. The interpretation of gerunds is identical to that
enj

of adverbs: it depends on the functional verbal specifier they are located in. As a final
point, the inability of MG gerunds to occupy argument positions can also be con-
nB

nected with their lack of a CP projection: CP has often been argued to be responsible
for turning the verb phrase into a sentence, capable of occurring as a complement;
this is the equivalent of noun phrase syntax, where only full DPs can be arguments (cf.
Joh

Longobardi 1994).33
The issue of the existence of a Tense projection in Greek gerunds is harder to
discuss, mainly because tense has a quite complex structure and is not a simple propo-
-

sitional operator, and also because its relationship to Aspect is not entirely clear; it can
thus not be represented as just one projection responsible for the temporal interpreta-
ofs

tion of the clause. Furthermore, since Tense phrases are standardly viewed as the locus
where subjects check case, this projection is closely connected with the licencing of
subjects in clausal gerunds.
pro

Tsimpli (2000: 142) takes the gerunds’ context-dependency for temporal interpre-
tation, as well as their inability to express Future, as evidence of lack of a proper Tense
ted

projection; on the other hand, context-dependency for temporal interpretation is not

sufficient for the rejection of a Tense Phrase. Here a distinction should be made be-
tween null subject, obligatory control gerunds on the one hand, and nominative sub-
rec

ject gerunds on the other. For the first type, the relevant literature in other languages
in general accepts the absence of a Tense projection,34 and the same claim is made for
cor

Greek (Sitaridou & Haidou 2002: 585). Nominative subject clausal gerunds, however,
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.30 (1886-1951)

 Io Manolessou

require some device for the licensing of their subject. For Sitaridou-Haidou (2002) this
device is a Tense projection, bearing semantic and not morphological tense, where the

y
gerundival subject ends up after movement out of the VP. Its presence as a separate

pan
projection is supported by the co-occurrence of temporal adverbs with gerunds, (36):
(36) Pernontas xθes o Kostas to ðromo, ton xtipise

Com
crossing yesterday the Kostas.nom the street, he.acc.sg hit.3sg.aor
ena aftocinito.
a car.nom
‘As Costas was crossing the street yesterday, a car hit him.’

ing
It is true that a movement of the subject from VP to the postulated TP would be in-
visible in most gerund phrases, as e.g. in the example above, although the subject is
lish
almost always post-verbal in MG gerunds.35 This surface order can be seen as the re-
sult of movement of the gerund to a higher projection, past the subject. However, in
Pub

perfective gerunds, a subject having moved to a Tense projection should precede per-
fective infinitival forms (located in Aspect), something which does not happen; the
subject follows all the modifiers of the gerund, i.e. does not seem to have moved at all,
cf. (37):
ins

(37) Exontas pjia vareθi i Maria, aftoktonise.

am

having already had.enough the Mary.nom, kill-oneself.3sg.aor

‘Having had enough by now, Mary killed herself.’
enj

Word order data therefore speak against a TP as the host of the subject in gerunds.
Furthermore, without conclusive independent motivation for the projection of TP
nB

in certain types of gerunds (even if not disjoint temporal interpretation), it is dif-

ficult to interpret why, in identical environments, TP is sometimes projected and
sometimes not.
Joh

A further problem with Tense in MG gerunds appears when the evolution set forth
in Section 2, which shows clearly that there are morphological reflexes of the reduction
of tense in MG gerunds, is considered. More specifically, in the Medieval period, it
-

was possible to express anteriority/perfectivity through a special “aoristic/perfective”

form, which later disappeared. The absence of a TP in MG gerunds would be one
way of explaining why perfective gerunds such as vlepsontas, γrapsontas (‘having seen’,
ofs

‘having written’) are no longer possible, as in MedG or the S. Italian dialects.

Similarly, futurity is another temporal interpretation that was available for partici-
pro

ples/gerunds in earlier phases of the language, but is impossible in MG. In Hellenistic

(Mayser 1926: 170) and MedG it was possible to express posteriority/futurity/finality
ted

through the imperfective form, modifying verbs denoting motion, (38):

(38) a. Na apelθomen eðo is tin Romanian kursevonta, zimiononta.
rec

sub come.1pl here to the Romania plundering, destroying

‘To come here, to Greece, in order to plunder and destroy.’ (Chr. M.3648)
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.31 (1951-2014)

From participles to gerunds 

b. O Anθenor eðievike tus θeus proskinonta.

the Anthenor.nom go.3sg.aor the gods.acc.pl doing.homage

y
‘Antenor went to do homage before the gods.’ (War of Troy 1489)

pan
This usage has disappeared in MG, even though the form of the gerund has not
changed at all. Positing, therefore, an identical functional structure for earlier and later

Com
forms of the gerund cannot capture this differentiation.
On the other hand, nominative case licensing in gerunds does require an expla-
nation, which is most readily furnished by the postulation of a TP, as Sitaridou and
Haidou (2002), and Pires (2001, to appear) propose. Earlier proposals, such as default

ing
nominative case for gerund subjects (Philippaki & Katsimali 1995; Alexiadou 1995;
also accepted in Tsokoglou & Kleidi 2002) face the difficulty that they constitute a
lish
Greek-specific solution, although exceptions to subject control in gerunds are not a
Greek-specific phenomenon: they occur in several languages, often dismissed as non-
normative by standard grammars (Haspelmath 1995: 30) or belonging to an earlier
Pub

historical phase (Babby & Franks 1998: 487; Egerland 1999). Furthermore, Torrego’s
(1998) study on adverbial infinitive clauses in several Romance languages shows that
other non-finite forms in adverbial function may also exhibit nominative subjects.
ins

Turning now to less complex issues, on the basis of the historical evidence, a case
can be made for the projection of the other verbal categories, namely Voice, Mood and
am

Aspect. Voice, first of all, as was discussed in 4.2, is the main distinguishing character-
istic between the gerund, which is unambiguously active, and the participle, which is
not exclusively passive.
enj

As for Aspect, the process of evolution has shown that aspectual distinctions were
lost, along with temporal ones; however, the 20th c. saw their re-establishment, with
nB

the novel evolution of periphrastic active and passive Perfect gerunds (exo γrapsi, exo
γrafθi). The developments examined in 2.7 above, with the creation of the new per-
Joh

fective gerund forms both for the active and the passive voice, show that a category
“Aspect”, hosting a gerundival form of the auxiliary verb, does indeed exist in MG,
contrasting with the previous periods. Tsimpli (2000: 146) terms this category “PerfP”,
-

considering it a functional projection containing “aspectual features”, while Rivero

(1994) terms it simply Aspect Phrase; so, terminological distinctions aside, the recent
literature seems to agree on the existence of an aspectual projection.36
ofs

The projection of a Mood Phrase in MG gerunds and its exact location is more
controversial. For Philippaki (1995), the [-ontas] ending is a suffix belonging to an
pro

Agreement projection and not to Mood, because its placement in MoodP, which oc-
curs above Negation, should block the occurrence of negative gerunds (mi γrafontas),
something which does not happen. For Rivero (1994) and Roussou (2000: 86–88),
ted

Mood exists, but located below negation, and for Tsimpli (2000), the [-ontas] suffix
belongs in Mood, but the surface word order is due to the raising of the Negation
rec

µην to Mood.
Remaining agnostic on the question of the relative order of NegP and MP, what
cor

must be pointed out is that the very fact that gerunds are negated by min is an indi-
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.32 (2014-2065)

 Io Manolessou

cation for the existence of a Mood projection. Note crucially that this is a diachronic
evolution, as in previous phases the Negation u: or ðen was also possible: AG partici-

y
ples allowed both kinds of negation, depending on the type of participle, and this was

pan
to a certain extent maintained in MedG as well, (39):37
(39) a. U poseos to sinolon θelonta tu

Com
neg drink.gen.sg the total.acc.sg wanting the.gen.sg.neut
γefθine.
taste.inf
‘Not wanting to taste any drink at all.’ (Digenis G 4.381)

ing
b. ðen eγnorizontas o trisaθlios pjios ine.
neg knowing the triply.miserable.nom who.nom be.3sg
‘Not knowing, the triply miserable, who it is.’
lish
(Kechagioglou 2001: 316, 1632 AD)
Pub

It seems therefore that some syntactic mechanism is required in MG in order to

account for the choice/stabilisation of the negation min.
ins

. Conclusions
am

This paper gives a detailed stage-by-stage exposition of the history of the Greek par-
ticiple system. A new interpretation of gerund evolution is offered, taking into con-
enj

sideration (a) similar phenomena in other languages, showing that the transformation
of participle to gerund is a cross-linguistically well-attested evolutionary path and (b)
nB

corresponding evolutions in the domain of the passive participle. Gerund evolution

is viewed under the perspective of a gradual specialisation of an originally mixed
Joh

category, possessing both verbal and nominal features, to a purely verbal category.
Similarly, the evolution from passive participle to participial adjective is interpreted
as the gradual specialisation of the same mixed category to a purely nominal one. The
-

motivation behind the evolution towards the gerund is partly attributed to the com-
plex agreement requirements of the adverbial participle. Finally, the implications of
the diachronic data for our conception of participial syntax were discussed.
ofs
pro

Notes

* I would like to dedicate this paper to Prof. Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, who was my
ted

first teacher in linguistics, my supervisor on behalf of the Greek State Scholarships Foundation,
and, more importantly, my first model of scholarly integrity. I would also like to thank profs.
Despina Cheila-Markopoulou and Amalia Moser for their comments on this paper.
rec

. This development concerns only Standard MG; some dialects have followed diverging paths,
which range from extension of the active participle to Present tense periphrases as well (Tsako-
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.33 (2065-2139)

From participles to gerunds 

nian) to its total elimination (Asia Minor dialects) – for this cf. Mirambel (1961: 70–77) and
Nakas (1991: 188–189).

y
. The English gerund has a double status, both nominal (“the giving of gifts”) and verbal (“I

pan
hate giving gifts”) – for an overview of current treatments of this “mixed” status cf. Hudson
(2000). On the contrary, the MG form has no nominal features, corresponding rather to the
French gérondif. In more detail, the MG gerund does not possess any of the following properties

Com
(from Blevins 1994): (a) nominal inflection- genitive and plural forms (b) argumental function
(subject, object, predicate) (c) determination through articles (d) adnominal modifiers such as
genitive DPs. The MG gerund is uninflected and takes only verbal complements – nominative
subjects, accusative objects and adverbial modifiers, cf. the references in Section 1.7. In this

ing
respect, Moser (2002: 111) is correct in doubting the applicability of the term “gerund” to the
MG form; its is maintained here because of the wider cross-linguistic scope of the discussion.
. Mainly: Jannaris (1897: 504–506), Hatzidakis (1924, 1927, 1928), Mirambel (1961), Mandi-
lish
laras (1973: 352–373), Horrocks (1997: 120–124, 228–229).
. Works treating AG participles (Mugler 1938; Oguse 1962; cf. also Jimenez 1987 and the ref-
Pub

erences in Schwyzer 1950: 385) do not provide the kind of quantitative information that would
be helpful to the present investigation. Also, large-scale computerised tagging of AG texts does
not exist, and for later texts nothing is at all available, with the exception of the New Testa-
ment. Studies on the NT sometimes also provide comparative data for AG authors; cf. e.g. Fisher
ins

(1989).
. For morphology and inflection tables cf. Smyth (1965: 81–85). The AG participle has sepa-
am

rate forms for Present, Aorist, Future and Perfect. The difference between Present and Aorist
is not temporal, but aspectual (imperfective vs. perfective). If one interprets the Perfect as also
enj

expressing aspect, and the Future as belonging to the field of modality, it could be argued that
the AG participle does not have tense.
. The term “spoken language” requires some qualification. It is generally accepted that AG lit-
nB

erature is mostly written in literary dialects or in an high register, not representative of everyday
spoken language. However, it is possible to find testimonies of colloquial language in certain
Joh

types of texts – cf. Dover (1987) for examples. The medical treatises discussed here, written in a
non-literary, factual prose style, are usually considered as containing a higher concentration of
colloquial features than standard literature.
-

. Gignac (1981: 46–47), Horrocks (1997: 66–67), cf. also Note 15 below for the reverse phe-
nomenon.
. Note that our evidence for this period comes almost exclusively from Egyptian papyri, mostly
ofs

written by non-native speakers, whose command of the language may have been imperfect; so
the picture emerging from participle use in papyri may not be representative of Greek in general,
esp. since neither case nor adverbial participles exist in Egyptian (Schwyzer 1950: 386; Loprieno
pro

1995: 55–56, 87).

. Cf. Mandilaras (1973: 356–358, 369), Mayser (1934: 67–70), and Soliman (1965: 103–105)
for the papyri, de Foucault (1972: 173) for the literary Koine and esp. Blass and Debrunner
ted

(1961: 423) for the NT: “The NT authors tend to make the participial clause independent and to
prefer the absolute construction. . . where a classical author would not have admitted it even as
rec

a special license.”
. Mendez-Dosuna (2000: 290–291) adduces another reason to consider the -onta ending as
cor

stemming from the masculine: gerunds are mainly subject oriented, and so are more likely to
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.34 (2139-2198)

 Io Manolessou

have developed out of masculines, which have higher agentivity than neuters. An anonymous
reviewer has suggested that the analogical presence in -onta forms of the final -n of the acc. sg.
which appears in other masc. inflectional paradigms would provide additional proof that these

y
are masculine forms. Such cases do exist (e.g. fenome kaθaran amfierosin. . . piontan = “I declare

pan
I am making a clear dedication”, Guillou Oppido, doc.24, 1053); however, the presence of the
final -n is not significant, since in MedG there was a tendency for it to extend to any word-
class ending in a vowel, including neuter nouns (e.g. praγman, γramman), cf. Minas (1994: 62),

Com
Jannaris (1897: 544).
. List of the examples in Malalas in Wolf (1911: 54), additional instances in Hatzidakis
(1892: 144) and Jannaris (1897: 207); cf. also Gelzer (1893: 198), Reinhold (1898: 57–58, Ad-

ing
denda), Mitsakis (1967: 158–159). Note that instances of the -onta ending often do not appear
in the text of the edition of such early texts, but only in the apparatus criticus. This makes them
difficult to locate, as they will not be mentioned in any index or introduction and, more impor-
lish
tantly, will never be hit upon by a computer search, even when a machine-readable version the
text exists.
. CD-ROM PHI #7, Greek Documentary Texts, Packard Humanities Institute: -onta in
Pub

CHR0013 (christian inscriptions of mainland Greece) and CHR0010 (christian inscriptions of

Asia Minor).
. One example of an [-onta] masculine participle occurs in Malalas, 29.43: jynekoðis exon
ins

frenas ce polypraγmonunta (= having.nom.sg. masc a female mind and being-meddlesome.acc.

sg.masc.), cf. Wolf 1911.II.28. However, in opposition to the neuter [-onta] forms, which appear
am

in equal proportion with the “correctly” inflected forms in this text, this masculine participle is
an isolated case, contrasting with hundreds of “correct” forms, and could thus be considered as a
scribal intervention. There is also the single example of a feminine form in -onta in the NT, ikusa
enj

fonin mian. . . leγonta Apoc.9.13–4 (= I heard one voice.acc.sg.fem. . . saying.acc.sg.masc, but

(a) there are variant readings with the feminine form (BDF §136 n.3) and (b) this need not be a
nB

gerund form, but an agreeing participle, i.e. one more simple case of a masculine form instead
of a feminine one, as occurs several times in the Revelation (4.1, 5.12, 11.15 etc.). So Hatzidakis
(1928: 636) correctly rejects this example as the earliest instance of the gerund.
Joh

. It is thus a misconception to consider early, Hellenistic, forms of a non-agreeing participle

in [-ontas] as first attestations of the MG situation, since the [-s] suffix on the [-onta] ending
appears only during the later MedG period. So, the examples quoted by Mandilaras (1973: 358)
-

following Kapsomenakis (1938: 40) are not early precursors of the MG gerund: pantes ofilomen
stefaniforuntas ce vuθituntas. . . iðene P.Oxy.1021.14–8, 54 AD, kata ton polemon symmaçisantes
ce panijirizontas P.Oxy.705.33–5 (200 AD). These are nominative plural endings, a hypercorrect
ofs

reaction against the -es ending which had begun to replace -as in the accusative, and are thus
unrelated to the history of the participle.
pro

. Note crucially that Haspelmath (1994) considers that the formation of past passive-
morphology participles from active-form intransitive and unaccusative verbs is a universal
tendency, due to the resultative semantics associated with such verbs.
ted

. Cf. Minas (1994: 176–177) for examples of complement and attributive use in MedG S.
Italian documents.
rec

. The Aorist ending being reformed from [-anta] to [-onta] under the analogical influence of
the Present.
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.35 (2198-2263)

From participles to gerunds 

. Thus, in the northern dialects, the vestiges of the present participle in -amenos and -umenos
are exclusively attributive or substantivised: l’paminus ‘compassionate’ (< lipame ‘to be sorry’),
ixuminus ‘rich’ (< exo ‘to have’), pirazaminus ‘passer-by’ (< perno ‘to pass’) etc. (Papadopoulos

y
1926: 96–97), and the same is valid for the Cypriot and the Rhodian dialects as well (Menardos

pan
1925a: 66–67; Papachristodoulou 1958: 75–76).
. Pace Tsoulas (1996) who accepts argumental readings. Examples like θimiθika ton Kosta

Com
oðiγontas to aftocinito (1996: 462) can only mean ‘I remembered Costas as I was driving’ and
not ‘I remembered Costas driving’. For this cf. the discussion in Spyropoulos and Philippaki
(2001: 158).
. The participial clauses in -omenos proposed in Tsokoglou and Kleidi (2002) are a different

ing
case: they concern not the resultative passive past participles discussed here, but relic present
passive participles such as erxomenos, erγazomenos, which constitute a small non-productive
subset within MG. lish
. For this cf. in detail: Svennung (1935: 425–432), Leumann, Hoffmann and Szantyr (1965:
383–384, 389, 392) and, more recently, Bauer (1993) and Egerland (1999).
Pub

. Cf. Ambrazas (1990: 261): “Die Partizipien, die eine verallgemeinerte adverbiale Bedeu-
tung genommen haben, lösen sich ganz vom Kasusparadigm und gewinnen die für Adverbien
typische unflektierte Form”.
. All the languages examined here belong to the Indo-European family; in order to ascertain
ins

whether the phenomenon appears in other families as well, further research is required. Cf.
for example Gordon (1982: 3), who, examining the history of the Hebrew participle claims that
am

it “undergoes polarization; from an intermediate form with some nominal and some verbal
qualities in Biblical Hebrew, it develops to become, in Modern Hebrew, either clearly nominal
enj

or clearly verbal in any given sense”.

. Cf. Tsokoglou and Kleidi (2002) on the cases of adjective agreement within participial
nB

clauses in MG, where it is argued that such agreement is achieved not structurally, but through
co-reference with the subject PRO which is in turn co-referent with the matrix subject: a multi-
step semantic path.
Joh

. A potential solution would be to consider, following Torrego (1998), that the subjects of
non-finite forms displaying agreement (in her case, mostly inflected infinitives) are not PRO
but pro. However, pro is inherently nominative in Torrego’s examples, something that is not
-

valid for AG participial subjects.

. From another viewpoint as well, the AG participle is a much more marked construction
than the gerund: it possesses overt features belonging both to the nominal and to the verbal
ofs

domain, whereas the gerund is a purely verbal category. The evolution of the passive participle
towards adjectivisation can also be viewed under the perspective of a marked “mixed” category
pro

evolving into a purely nominal one.

. There are some examples in the apocryphal Gospels, e.g. ðia to mi ekðoton emaftin piisasa
Acta Thomae 215.21, Ljungvik (1926: 55), but these disappear in later texts, and indeed the ar-
ted

ticular infinitive is a very productive construction in MedG, cf. Mackridge (1997) for details of
this construction.
. For this cf. Hatzidakis (1892: 52 Anm.3), Jannaris (1897: §518b).
rec

. See also Kurzova (1997) who sees the replacement of the participle through finite clauses
within the general framework of a change from a system of paratactic adjuncts to one of clearly
cor

defined subordination.
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.36 (2263-2324)

 Io Manolessou

. The split evolution of active gerund vs. non-active (not just passive) participle lends credi-
bility to recent proposals (Kratzer 1996; Arad 1999) concerning the status of external arguments,
which are argued to belong to a Voice projection and not to the VP proper. The Greek gerund,

y
being a verbal category, can be interpreted as possessing the category Voice, which thus licenses

pan
an Agent; the gerund is therefore active. The participle, on the other hand, having lost all verbal
categories, has no Voice and no external argument. Therefore, any verb which is not active (be

Com
it passive, unaccusative or unergative) might form “passive participles”.
. Cf. similar tests in Stowell (1982) for English.
. The arguments in Katsimali (2003) against the existence of a CP projection in AG participial
clauses are dubious: the fact that AG adverbial participles are not accompanied by complemen-

ing
tisers introducing object clauses, such as hoti or hina, is due to their meaning and their function
in the clause, and not to the absence of a CP projection. Furthermore, the optional appear-
ance of a complementiser does not entail the absence of a CP projection, as e.g. in the English
lish
complement clauses optionally introduced by that.
. In the latest papers asserting the existence of CP in Greek gerunds (Roussou 2000 and,
Pub

following her, Sitaridou & Haidou 2002), the projection argued for is in fact a kind of Mood
projection and has no bearing on the discussion in the present paragraph. Cf. also Pires (to ap-
pear) for additional arguments (involving indirect questions and complementisers) against a CP
projection in English clausal gerunds.
ins

. Cf. Alexandrova (1995) for Bulgarian, Babby and Franks (1998) for Russian, Pires (2001)
for English. The seminal discussion of Stowell (1982) also argues against a Tense projection in
am

gerunds, based on the internally determined future interpretation of infinitives as compared

with the “completely malleable” temporal interpretation of the gerund, which is determined
enj

externally by the semantics of the control verb. The opposite view is defended in Tsokoglou and
Tsimpli (2002), who argue in favour of a TP projection in MG gerunds based on examples with
independent temporal adverbs, e.g. Fevγontas noris simera to proi, θa ise sto Parisi avrio ‘Leaving
nB

early this morning, you’ll be in Paris tomorrow’.

. The exceptions are topicalised or focused subjects, cf. Rivero (1994).
Joh

. Cf. Moser (2002) for the most recent account of the semantics of aspect in MG gerunds.
. For participle negation in Classical and Hellenistic Greek cf. Moorhouse (1948), and for
later developments cf. Jannaris (1897: 430–432), Landsman (1988–1989: 26) and references cited
-

therein.
ofs

References
pro

Aerts, W. J. (1965). Periphrastica. Amsterdam: A. Hakkert.

Alexandrova, G. (1995). Participial clauses in Bulgarian, Italian and Spanish: Argument
structure, agreement and case. In K. Zagona (Ed.), Grammatical Theory and the Romance
ted

Languages. Selected papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages
(LSRL XXV) Seattle, 2–4 March 1995 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 133] (pp. 1–12).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
rec

Alexiadou, A. (1995). Subject positions in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 16, 242–
253.
cor
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.37 (2324-2451)

From participles to gerunds 

Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement: A case study in antisymmetric syntax [Linguistik

Aktuell/Linguistics Today 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Alexiadou, A. & E. Anagnostopoulou (1999). Tests for unaccusativity in a language without

y
tests for unaccusativity. In A. Moser (Ed.), Greek Linguistics ’97. Proceedings of the 3rd

pan
International Conference on the Greek language (pp. 23–31). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
Ambrazas, V. (1990). Vergleichende Syntax der baltischen Partizipien. Vilnius: Academy of

Com
Sciences, Inst. of Language and Literature.
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001). On the distinction between verbal and adjectival passives:
Evidence from Greek. Paper presented at the Tübingen Workshop on Participles.
Arad, M. (1999). On little v. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 33, 1–25.
Babby, L. & S. Franks (1998). The syntax of Adverbial Participles in Russian Revisited. Slavic and

ing
East European Journal, 42(3), 483–515.
Bauer, B. (1993). The coalescence of the participle and the gerund/gerundive: An integrated
lish
change. In H. Aertsen & R. J. Jeffers (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 1989 (pp. 59–71).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blass, F. & A. Debrunner (1961). A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Pub

Christian Literature. Transl. by R. W. Funk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beshevliev, V. (1963). Die protobulgarischen Inschriften. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Bees, N. (1910). Über die Konstruktion von diaferein (gehören) mit dem Genetiv. Glotta, 2,
118–124 & 300.
ins

Blevins, J. (1994). A lexicalist analysis of gerundive nominals in English. Australian Journal of

Linguistics, 14, 1–38.
am

Browning, R. (1983). Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheila-Markopoulou, D. (2003). Protasiakotita ce metoçices ðomes stin aleksanðrini ce
enj

meseoniki ellinici (Sentence and participial structure in Alexandrian and Medieval Greek).
In D. Theophanopoulou-Kontou et al. (Eds.), Sinxrones tasis stin ellinici γlosoloγia. Meletes
afieromenes stin Irini Philippaki-Warburton (Curent trends in Modern Greek Linguistics.
nB

Studies dedicated to Irini Philippaki-Warburton) (pp. 128–143). Athens: Patakis.

Dieterich, K. (1898). Untersuchyngen zur Geschichte den griechishen Sprache von den
hellenistischen Zeit bis zum 10. Jhrh. N. Chr [Byzantinisches Archiv., Heft 1]. Leipzig:
Joh

Teubner.
Dover, K. J. (1987). The colloquial stratum in classical Attic prose. In K. J. Dover, Greek and the
Greeks, Collected papers (Vol. 1) (pp. 16–30). Oxford: Blackwell.
-

Egerland, V. (1999). Sulla sintassi delle costruzioni assolute participiali e gerundive nell’ italiano
antico ed il concetto di anacoluto. Revue Romane, 34(2), 181–204.
de Foucault, J. A. (1972). Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe. Paris: Belles Lettres.
ofs

Fisher, W. F. (1989). The Participle in the Greek Pentateuch: A descriptive analysis and
comparison to New Testament usage. Ph.D. Dissertation, SW Baptist Theological Seminary.
pro

Frisk, H. (1928). Participium und verbum finitum im Spätgriechischen. Glotta, 17, 56–66.
Gelzer, H. (1893). Leontios von Neapolis, Leben des heiligen Iohannes des Barmherzigen,
Erzbischofs von Alexandrien. Freiburg: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Giakoumaki, E. (1993). Iðiazuses sintaksis rimaton tis kriticis ðialektu (Special syntax of verbs
ted

in the Cretan dialect). Lexicografikon Deltion, 18, 39–53.

Gignac, F. T. (1981). A Grammar of the Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Vol. II),
rec

Morphology. Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica.

Gordon, A. (1982). The development of the participle in Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern Hebrew.
cor

Afroasiatic Linguistics, 8(3), 122–179.

Harris, M. (1978). The Evolution of French Syntax: A comparative approach. London: Longman.
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.38 (2451-2567)

 Io Manolessou

Haspelmath, M. (1994). Passive participles across languages. In B. Fox & P. J. Hopper (Eds.),
Voice. Form and function (pp. 151–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, M. (1995). The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In M. Haspelmath &

y
E. König (Eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial

pan
verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (pp. 1–55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hatzidakis, G. N. (1892). Einleitung in die Neugriechische Grammatik. Leipzig: Breitkopf and

Com
Härtel.
Hatzidakis, G. N. (1924). Paθitice metoçe meta enerγiticis simasias (Passive participles with
active meaning). Athena, 36, 197–199.
Hatzidakis, G. N. (1927). Peri tis metoçis tu paθitiku parakimenu en ti meseonici ce nea Ellinici
(On the perfect passive participle in Medieval and Modern Greek). EEFSPTh, 1, 3–34.

ing
Hatzidakis, G. N. (1928). Simvoli is tin istorian tis ellinicis γlosis. Peri ton metoxon
(Contribution to the history of the Greek language. On participles). Proceedings of the
Academy of Athens, 3, 634–645.
lish
Hatzidakis, G. N. (1934). Parektetamena moria tis neas ellinicis (Suffixed particles of Modern
Greek). In G. N. Hatzidakis, Γlosoloγice erevne A’ (pp. 223–226). Athens: Academy of
Pub

Athens.
Horrocks, G. (1997). Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. London: Longman.
Hudson, R. (2000). Gerunds and multiple default inheritance. UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics, 12, 417–449.
ins

Hult, A. (1991). On the Development of the Present Active Participle in Bulgarian

[Commentationes Slavicae Gothoburgenses 6]. Göteborg: University of Göteborg.
am

Iordanidou, A. (1985). La diglossie en Grèce: Étude d’un cas précis, le participe. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Université de Paris VII.
enj

Jannaris, G. (1897). An Historical Greek Grammar, Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. London:
MacMillan.
Jimenez, M. A. D. (1987). La distribucion de participio concertado y subordinada adverbial en
nB

la lengua literaria griega del s. V a.C. Emerita, 55(1), 51–62.

Kapsomenakis, S. (1938). Voruntersuchungen zu einer Grammatik der griechischen Papyri.
Beiträge zur Herstellung und Deutung einzelner Texten. München.
Joh

Karanastasis, A. (1997). Γramatici ton elinikon iðiomaton tis Kato Italias (Grammar of the Greek
dialects of Southern Italy). Athens: Academy of Athens.
Karla, G. (2002). Metafrazontas metoçes se ðimoði loγo to 1600 (Translating participles in
-

colloquial language in 1600). In P. Agapitos & M. Pieris (Eds.), T aiðonin cinon pu γlika
θlivate. . . Acts of the 4th International Conference Neograeca Medii Aevi (November 1997,
Nicosia) (pp. 185–205). Herakleion: Panepistimiakes Ekdoseis Kritis.
ofs

Katsimali, G. (2003). Xalari ipotaksi. I periptosi tis metoçis se γenici apoliti (Loose
subordination. The case of the genitive absolute participle). In D. Theophanopoulou-
Kontou et al. (Eds.), Sinxrones tasis stin ellinici γlosoloγia. Meletes afieromenes stin Irini
pro

Philippaki-Warburton (pp. 144–157). Athens: Patakis.

Katsoyannou, M. (1995). To rima sto eliniko iðioma tis Kalavrias (The verb in the Greek dialect
of Calabria). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 15, 542–553.
ted

Kavčič, J. (2001). On the use of the participle functioning as a finite verbal form in the chronicle
of John Malalas. Linguistica, 41, 77–92.
rec

Kechagioglou, G. (2001). Pezoγrafici anθoloγia. Afiγimatikos γraptos neoelinikos loγãïs [Prose

Anthology. Narrative Modern Greek prose Vol. 1]. Thessaloniki: Manolis Triantafyllidis
cor

Foundation.
Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.39 (2567-2685)

From participles to gerunds 

Keil, J. & A. Wilhelm (1931). Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (Vol. III), Denkmäler aus dem
Rauhen Kilikien. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kester, H. P. (1994). EUROTRA Grammar: Adnominal participles and infinitives in Germanic and

y
Romance languages. Torino: Edizioni dell’ Orso.

pan
Klaffenbach, G. (1933). Book review of Keil and Wilhelm (1931). Deutsche Literaturzeitung
(12/3/1933), Heft, 11, 492–499.

Com
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its head. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring
(Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Kroch, A. (2001). Syntactic change. In M. Baltin & C. Collins, The Handbook of Contemporary
Syntactic Theory (pp. 699–729). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kühner, R. & C. Stegmann (1966). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischer Sprache (Teil II,

ing
Satzlehre). Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
Kurzova, H. (1997). Notes on Greek participial constructions. In E. Banfi (Ed.), Studi di
lish
linguistica greca II (pp. 107–127). Milano: Franco Angeli.
Langholf, V. (1977). Unmovierte Partizipien im Griechischen. Hermes, 105, 290–307.
Landsman, D. M. (1988–1989). The history of some Greek negatives: Phonology, grammar and
Pub

meaning. Glossologia, 7–8, 13–31.

Laskaratou, G. & I. Philippaki (1984). Lexical versus transformational passives in Modern Greek.
Glossologia, 2–3, 99–109.
Leumann, M., J. B. Hofmann, & A. Szantyr (1965). Lateinische Grammatik (Bd. 2), Lateinische
ins

Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.

Ljungvik, H. (1926). Studien zur Sprache der apokryphen Apostelgeschichten. Uppsala: Lunde-
am

quistska Bokhandeln.
Lindstedt, J. (2002). Is there a Balkan verb system? Balkanistika, 15, 323–336.
enj

Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and
logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665.
Loprieno, A. (1995). Ancient Egyptian. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
nB

University Press.
Mackridge, P. (1997). The medieval Greek infinitive in the light of dialectal evidence. In K.
Konstantinides et al. (Eds.), ΦIΛEΛΛHN. Studies in honour of R. Browning (pp. 191–204).
Joh

Venice: Istituto ellenico di studi bizantini e postbizantini.

Mandilaras, B. (1973). The Verb in the Greek Non Literary Papyri. Athens: Ministry of Culture.
Mayser, E. (1926). Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (Bd.I, 1926),
-

Formenlehre (Bd.II.2, 1934), Satzlehre (Bd.II.3, 1935). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Menardos, S. (1925a). Peri tis ðiaθeseos ton cipriakon rimaton (On the the aspecti of the Cypriot
verb). EEFSPA, 1, 75–86.
ofs

Menardos, S. (1925b). Cipriaci γramatici. Rimata (Cypriot Grammar. Verbs) Athena, 37, 35–79.
Mendez-Dosuna, J. (2000). Book review of Horrocks (1997). Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 274–
pro

295.
Minas, K. (1994). I γlosa ton ðimosievmenon meseonikon elinikon engrafon tis Kato Italias ce
Sicelias (The language of the published Medieval Greek documents of Southern Italy and
Sicily). Athens: Academy of Athens.
ted

Mitsakis, K. (1967). The language of Romanos the Melodist. München: Beck.

Mirambel, A. (1961). Participe et gérondif en grec medieval et moderne. Bulletin de la Societé
rec

Linguistique de Paris, 56, 46–79.

Moorhouse, A. C. (1948). On negativing Greek participles, where the leading verbs are of a type
to require µÞ. Classical Quarterly, 42, 35–40.
cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.40 (2685-2796)

 Io Manolessou

Moser, A. (1988). A History of the Greek Perfect Periphrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Cambridge.
Moser, A. (2002). Metoçes, γerunðia, -ontas. Xronos ce apopsi (Participles, gerunds, -ontas.

y
Tense in perspective). In Ch. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en linguistique grecque. Actes du 5e

pan
colloque international de linguistique grecque. Sorbonne, 13–15 Septembre 2001 (Vol. II) (pp.
111–114). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Com
Mugler, C. (1938). L’evolution des constructions participiales complexes en grec et en latin.
Strasbourg.
Muñio Valverde, J.-L. (1995). El gerundio en el espanol medieval (s.XII– XIV). Malaga: Libreria
Agora.
Nakas, A. (1985). Metoçika, i pos xrisimopiun ti metoçi o Seferis, o Makrijianis, o Elitis

ing
(Participials, or how Seferis, Makrijianis and Elitis use the participle). In A. Nakas (Ed.),
Γlosofiloloγika (pp. 136–174). Athens: Kalvos.
lish
Nakas, A. (1991). Γia ti metoçi ce to rimatiko epiθeto se -tos opos emfanizete stin Cini Nea
Ellinici ce tis ðialektus (On the participle and the verbal adjective in -tos as it appears in
Standard Modern Greek and its dialects). In B. A. Nakas (Ed.), Γlosofiloloγika (pp. 177–204).
Pub

Athens: Smili.
Oguse, A. (1962). Recherches sur le participe circonstanciel en grec ancien. Wetteren.
Papachristodoulou, Ch. (1958). Morfoloγia ton roðitikon iðiomaton (Morphlogy of the dialects
of Rhodes). Dodekanisiakon Arxion, 3, 9–106.
ins

Papadopoulos, A. (1926). Γramatici ton vorion iðiomaton tis neas ellinicis γlosis (Grammar of the
Northern dialects of the Modern Greek language). Athens: Sakellariou.
am

Papadopoulos, Th. (1977). Nikolau Sofianu, γramatici tis cinis ton Ellinon γlosis (Nikolau Sofianu,
Grammar of Standard Modern Greek). Athens: Kedros.
enj

Petersmann, H. (1979). Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der motionslosen Partizipia im Griechi-

schen. Die Sprache, 25, 144–166.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1995). Diaxronici θeorisi tis θesis ton englitikon mesa stin protasi (A
nB

diachronic approach to the position of clitis in the sentence). Studies in Greek Linguistics,
15, 123–134.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. & G. Katsimali (1995). Control in Ancient Greek. In G. Drachman et
Joh

al. (Eds.), Greek Linguistics ’95 (pp. 577–598). Salzburg.

Pires, A. (2001). Clausal and TP-defective gerunds: Control without tense. Preceedings of NELS,
31, 389–406.
-

Pires, A. (to appear). Clausal gerunds in minimalism. Univ. of Maryland Working Papers in
Linguistics 12 (Special volume on Control and Binding).
Reinhold, H. (1898). De graexitate patrum apostolicorum librorumque apocryphorum Novi
ofs

Testamenti quaestiones grammaticae. Ph.D. Dissertation, Halle.

Rivero, M.-L. (1994). Noun movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language &
pro

Linguistic Theory, 12, 63–120.

Roberts, I. & A. Roussou (2002). The history of the future. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic Effects
of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roussou, A. (2000). On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers. Journal of
ted

Greek Linguistics, 1, 65–94.

Rupprecht, K. (1926). Zwei Probleme der griechischen Syntax. 1: Der Gebrauch maskuliner
rec

Formen bei Femininen. Philologus, 81(NF 35), 101–106.

Rydå, S. (1988). Present and Aorist Participles in Contemporary Greek Newspapers (Disser-
cor

tationes Neohellenicae Universitatis Stockholmiensis 2). Stockholm.

Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.41 (2796-2911)

From participles to gerunds 

Schwyzer, E. (1942). Zum sog. genitivus absolutus statt participium coniunctum im Grie-
chischen. Emerita, 10, 98–104.
Schwyzer, E. (1950). Griechische Grammatik (Bd. II). München: Beck.

y
Seiler, H.-J. (1958). Zur Systematik und Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Nominal-

pan
deklination. Glotta, 37, 4–67.
Setatos, M. (1985). Paratirisis sta rimatika epiθeta se -menos ce -tos tis Cinis Neas Ellinicis

Com
(Observations on the verbal adjectives in -menos and -tos in Standard Modern Greek).
Studies in Greek Linguistics, 5, 73–87.
Sitaridou, I. & K. Haidou (2002). I arçi tis nomimopiisis ton ipocimenon sta ellinika Γerunðia
(The licensing of subjects in Greek gerunds). Studies in Greek linguistics, 22, 583–592.
Sklavounou, E. (2000). Ta epiθeta tis neoellinicis se -menos (The Modern Greek adjectives in

ing
-menos). Studies in Greek Linguistics, 20, 499–510.
Smyth, H. W. (1956). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
lish
Soliman, A. H. (1965). Xrisis tis γenicis en tis metaptolemaicis papiris (The use of genitive in
the postptolemaic papyri). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Athens.
Spieker, E. H. (1885). On the so-called genitive Absolute and its use especially in the Attic
Pub

orators. American Journal of Philology, 6, 310–343.

Spyropoulos, V. & I. Philippaki-Warburton (2001). “Subject” and EPP in Greek. Journal of Greek
Linguistics, 2, 149–186.
Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 561–570.
ins

Svennung, J. (1935). Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur Lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache.
Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells.
am

Taube, M. (1981). Participe et gérondif en vieux russe. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2, 125–132.
Torrego, E. (1998). Nominative subjects and pro-drop Infl. Syntax, 1–2, 206–219.
enj

Triantafyllidis, M. et al. (1941). Neolinici Gramatici tis Dimotikis (Modern Greek Grammar of
the Demotic). Athens: OESV.
Tsoulas, G. (1996). Notes on temporal interpretation and control in Modern Greek gerunds.
nB

York Papers in Linguistics, 17, 441–470.

Tsimpli, I.-M. (2000). Gerunds in Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 1, 131–169.
Tsokoglou, A. & S. Kleidi (2002). I ðomes ton metoxon -ontas ce -menos (The structure of
Joh

participles in -ontas and -menos). In Ch. Clairis (Ed.), Recherches en linguistique grecque.
Actes du 5e colloque international de linguistique grecque. Sorbonne, 13–15 Septembre 2001
(Vol. II) (pp. 279–282). Paris: L’Harmattan.
-

Tzartzanos, A. (1989). Neoelinici Sintaksis tis Cinis ðimotikis (Modern Greek Syntax of Standard
Demotic). Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis.
Vaillant, A. (1964). Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’ Etudes Slaves.
ofs

Weierholt, K. (1963). Studien im Sprachgebrauch des Malalas. Symb.Osl. Suppl.18, Oslo.

Whaley, L. (1990). The effect of non-surface grammatical relations on the genitive absolute
pro

in Koine Greek. In K. Dziwirek et al. (Eds.), Grammatical Relations: A cross-theoretical

perspective (pp. 457–472). Stanford: CSLI.
Wolf, K. (1911–1912). Studien zur Sprache des Malalas (Vol. I & II). München: Straub.
ted

Primary sources
rec

Acta Thomae: Bonnet, M. (Ed.). (1883). Acta Thomae. Leipzig.

cor
Un
 JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.42 (2911-3042)

 Io Manolessou

Apocalypses Apocryphae: Tischendorf, C. (Ed.). (1866). Apocalypses Apocryphae. Leipzig:

Mendelssohn.
Assizai: Sathas, K. N. (Ed.). (1877). Asize tu vasiliou ton Ierosolimon ce tis Cipru, Cipriaci nomi,

y
vizantina simvolea, kritice diathice. Meseonici Vivliothici 6. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie .

pan
BGU: W. Schubart et al. (Eds.). (1895–). Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen (Staatlichen)
Museen zu Berlin. Berlin.

Com
BGV: Legrand, E. (1880–1913). Bibliothèque Grecque Vulgaire. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Chr. M.: Schmitt, J. (Ed.). (1904). The Chronicle of Morea, London: Methuen.
Chr. P. : Chronicon Paschale in J. P. Migne (Ed.), Patrologiae Graecae cursus completus, 92, 70–
1023.
Digenis E: Jeffreys, E. (Ed.). (1998). Digenis Akritis. The Grottaferatta and Escorial versions.

ing
Cambridge Medieval Classics 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Digenis G: Jeffreys, E. (Ed.). (1998). Digenis Akritis. The Grottaferatta and Escorial versions.
lish
Cambridge Medieval Classics 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ev. Matt: Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. In K. Aland et al. (Eds.). (19912 ): Novum
Testamentum Graece et Latine. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Pub

Evang. Thomae.: Tischendorf, C. (1876). Evangelia Apocrypha, Leipzig, 140–163.

Guillou, Messina: Guillou, A. (Ed.). (1963). Les actes grecs de S. Maria di Messina. Enquête sur
les populations grecques de l’Italie du Sud (XI–XIVe sc.). Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di studi
bizantini e neoellenici.
ins

Hp.Mul.: Hippocrates, Gynaikeia.

Hp.Steril.: Hippocrates, Peri aphoro:n.
am

Kallimachos: Pichard, M. (Ed.). (1956). Le Roman de Callimaque et de Chrysorrhoé. Paris.

Leontios: Gelzer, H. (Ed.). (1893). Leontios von Neapolis, Leben des heiligen Iohannes des
enj

Barmherzigen, Erzbischofs von Alexandrien. Freiburg i.B. / Leipzig: Akademische Verlags-

buchhandlung von J. C. B. Mohr.
Livistros E: Lambert, J. A. (Ed.). (1935). Le roman de Libistros et Rhodamné publié d’après les
nB

manuscrits de Leyde et de Madrid avec une introduction, des observations grammaticales et un

glossaire. Amsterdam.
Machairas: Dawkins, R. M. (Ed.). (1932). Leontios Makhairas. Recital concerning the Sweet Land
Joh

of Cyprus entitled “Chronicle”. Vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Malalas: I. v. Thurn. (Ed.). (2000): Ioannis Malalae Chronographia. Berlin: De Gruyter.
P. Fay.: Grenfell, B. P. & A. S. Hunt (Eds.). (1900). Fayum Towers and their Papyri. London.
-

P. Grenf.ii: Grenfell, B. P. & A. S. Hunt (Eds.). (1897). New Classical Fragments and oother Greek
and Latin Papyri. Oxford.
P. Lips.: Mitteis, L. (Ed.). (1906). Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig. Leipzig.
ofs

P.Cair.Zen.: Edgar, C. C. (Ed.). (1925–1951). Zenon papyri. Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut

français d’archéologie.
pro

P.Giss: Eger, O., Kornemann, E., & Meyer, P. (Eds.). (1910–1912). Griechische papyri im Museum
des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen. Leipzig & Berlin.
P.Hib.: Grenfell, B. P. et al. (1906–1955): The Hibeh papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
P.Tebt.: Grenfell, B. P. et al. (1902–1976): The Tebtunis papyri. London/NY: H. Frowde, Oxford
ted

University Press.
Pap.Cair.Masp.: Maspero, J. (Ed.). (1911–1916). Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
rec

Musée du Caire: Papyrus grecs d’époque byzantine. Cairo.

PGM: Papyri Magicae Graecae, ed. by K. Preisendanz et al. Leipzig & Berlin, 1928, 1931, 1941.
cor

Pind.Olymp.: Pindarus, Olympian Odes.

Un
JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2004; 14:41 F: LA7608.tex / p.43 (3042-3080)

From participles to gerunds 

POxy: Grenfell, B. P. et al. (Eds.). (1898–). The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egyptian
Exploration Fund.
Rev.Eg.: Revue d’Égyptologie. Published by La Société Française de l’Égypte, 1933–

y
Romanus Melodus: Maas, P. & Trypanis, C. (Eds.). (1963). Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica.

pan
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tacitus: P. Cornelius Tacitus, Annales.

Com
Theocr.Idyll.: Theocritus, Eidyllia.
UPZ: Wilcken, U. (1922–1937): Urkunde der Ptolemäerzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Velthadros: “Velthandros ce Xrisandza”, in E. Kriaras (Ed.). (1955), Vizantina ipotika
mithistorimata. Athens: Aetos.
Vita Epiph.: Vita Epiphanii, in J. P. Migne (Ed.). (1858), Patrologiae Graecae cursus completus,

ing
Vol. 41.
War of Troy: Papathomopoulos, M. & Jeffreys, E. M. (Eds.). (1996). O polemos tis Troados – The
War of Troy. Athens: MIET.
lish
X.Anab.: Xenophon, Anabasis.
Pub
ins
am
enj
nB
Joh
-
ofs
pro
ted
rec
cor
Un