360 LAURA A. MICHAELIS
both pivot types. In fact, as shown in (31a,c,e,) the subjects of impersonal
inverse verbs like libet can "raise to object", as can those of the two other
types of inverse verbs discussed — passive past participial verbs of percep
tion and gerundives denoting moral obligation (the form in oratio recta is
given following each embedded form):
(31) a. Demiror tibi hoc libere.
(I)marvel yOU(D) this(A) please(INF)
"I cannot believe this to please you."
b. Tibi hoc übet.
yOU(D) this(N) pleases
"This pleases you."
Ei ego a me referendam gratiam non
him(D) I by m(AB) returned(A) favor(A) not
putem?
should-think^8
"Am I not to think that the favor should be returned to him
by me?" Cic.,Plan. 78
d. Gratia referenda est mihi.
favor(N) returned(N) is me(D)
"The favor should be returned by me."
e. Arbitror hanc rem probatam esse homini.
(I)judge this(A) matter(A) looked-over(A) be(iNF) man(ö)
"I judge this matter to have been looked over by the man."
f. Haec res probata est homini.
this(N) matter(N) looked-over(N) is man(D).
"This matter has been looked over by the man."
The examples in (23) and (31) demonstrate that Latin allows the "raising to
object" of both an SmP lacking PrP status and a PrP lacking SmP status.
Hence, it appears that both pragmatically and semantically selected pivots
are crucial to the accusative-infinitive object construction. Where both
pivot types are independently represented, however, it is the PrP rather
than the SmP which will be "raised to object". The dative argument of
inverse verbs, a locative, outranks the nominatively coded theme for SmP
status; as shown, however, it is the theme, linked to the PrP function, which
is permitted to "raise to object". Thus, it is apparent that although this
