Re: In Acts 5:3, what is the function of σε?
Posted: May 14th, 2020, 3:38 pm
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5155
LOL. Well now you know what a dotard you're dealing with!Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑May 14th, 2020, 3:38 pmI don't know who Jeffrey is, but I'll be sure to pass on your thanks if I meet him.
I asked them to send me the free sample for Kindle ... the formatting is all messed up and unreadable on my Mac Kindle reader. It's a lot better than that on Android but still not good.nathaniel j. erickson wrote: ↑May 14th, 2020, 9:31 amThe translation is finished. Here is the English version: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Greek-Gr ... 1789975867. According to the preface, it is basically a slightly-edited and slightly-expanded (primarily with regard to issues of text-coherence) version of the German work. I haven't seen it yet, but really hope to get it soon.Siebenthal is in German, but it is being translated, I hope the translation is good.
Just be aware that Peter Lang's bindings are terrible and will fall apart with any long-term use.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑May 14th, 2020, 4:23 pmI asked them to send me the free sample for Kindle ... the formatting is all messed up and unreadable on my Mac Kindle reader. It's a lot better than that on Android but still not good.nathaniel j. erickson wrote: ↑May 14th, 2020, 9:31 amThe translation is finished. Here is the English version: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Greek-Gr ... 1789975867. According to the preface, it is basically a slightly-edited and slightly-expanded (primarily with regard to issues of text-coherence) version of the German work. I haven't seen it yet, but really hope to get it soon.Siebenthal is in German, but it is being translated, I hope the translation is good.
The German edition's formatting is fine.
So for now, at least, I'd consider the print book if I were getting this in English.
Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (pp. 208–209). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.405. The nominative with the infinitive. Classical Greek has only a few exceptions to the rule that the subject of the infinitive, if it is identical with the subject of the governing verb, is not expressed, but supplied in the nom. from the governing verb (§396). The few exceptions are prompted by the need of laying greater emphasis on the subject or by assimilation to an additional contrasting subject which must necessarily stand in the acc. Dependence of the infinitive on a preposition causes no change in the rule, nor does the insertion of δεῖ, χρή (NT not with the nom., except perhaps A 26:9 [s. infra (2)] in the speech of Paul before Agrippa; otherwise with the acc. and infinitive). (1) In the majority of cases in the NT too, a subject already given in or with the main verb is not repeated with the infinitive, and if the infinitive is accompanied by a nominal predicate or a modifying word or phrase agreeing with its subject, the latter is never and the former not always a basis for altering the construction to the acc. with the infinitive. In other words, the modifiers must, and the predicate can, be in the nom. as in classical: R 9:3 ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγώ, 1:22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί, H 11:4 ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος. (2) In those cases, however, in which, in addition to the personal construction preferred in Attic, an impersonal construction is also possible, the NT prefers the impersonal. The personal construction with the nom. is not at all common, especially with the passive (λέγομαι εἶναι and the like; H 11:4, s. supra), though it is a little more likely in the case of an infinitive denoting what is to happen (δεδοκιμάσμεθα πιστευθῆναι 1 Th 2:4) and with adjectives like δυνατός, ἱκανός (§393(4)); thus we have ἔδοξα ἐμαυτῷ δεῖν πρᾶξαι A 26:9 along with ἔδοξέ μοι Lk 1:3 etc.
1) To answer your question seriously, yes, that's one reason to make the subject of the infinitive explicit.