> > I would add to what Carl Conrad said. TI is the neuter of the indefinite
> > pronoun TIS and functions in this sentence as a relative pronoun. As Carl
> > said the whole clause serves as the direct object (showing indirect
> > discourse) of the imperative verb or participle. Within the clause TI
> > would be the subject (nominative) and TO QELHMA is the predicate nominative
> > with the verb ESTIN understood.
> Your explanation of this construction raised some questions for me.
> Could TI not be the interrogative and the sentence TI TO QELHMA TOU
> KURIOU an indirect question? Also, could TO QELHMA not be the
> subject and TI the predicate nominative? For both of these the
> statement would be: "The will of the Lord is X". I honestly do not
> know the answer to the questions I raise and would appreciate some
> clarification from those who do!
Yes, I originally identified TI TO QELHMA TOU KURIOU as an indirect
question; I would, like you, consider TO QELHMA TOU KURIOU as the subject
and TI' as the predicate nominative, but in an equational construction like
this I don't think we gain much by distinguishing which is the subject and
which is the predicate word.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org