>> Subject: Inf Abs vs Cstr
>> From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <dalemw AT teleport.com>
>> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 09:27:01 -0800
>> I have been searching in vain for the origin of the names
>> Infinitive "Absolute" and "Construct". Anyone know where they came
>> from ?? Am I correct in assuming that "Absolute" was applied to
>> this infinitive form because of its tendency to stand alone, like
>> an noun in the absolute, and "Construct" was applied to this
>> infinitive form because of its tendency to be subordinated?
> Subject: Re: Inf Abs vs Cstr
> From: "Charles David Isbell" <cisbell AT home.com>
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:35:49 -0600
> The terms used by medieval grammarians to describe the infinitives
> are instructive: [1] the MaQoR MuHLaT, or "definite {i.e., decided
> or unchanging} infinitive became the "infinitive absolute" when
> translated into non-Semitic languages. This is, of course, a good
> description of the form, for it does not inflect. [2] the MaQoR
> NiSMaKh (or MaQoR NaTuy) referred to a form of the infinitive that
> does in fact inflect (the medievalists said "mishtaneh") or "depend"
> upon other factors in its variety of functions reflected by multiple
> forms in the language. English "infinitive construct" is a rather
> slavish rendition of NiSMaKh, probably influenced by the similarity
> it bears to the "construct" state of the noun generally (SMiKhut in
> Hebrew grammar).
Thanks for the interesting history of the terminology; another factor
may have been that the infinitive construct in "strong" roots looks
like a construct noun phonologically (e.g. absence of pretonic
lengthening).