Eph. 5:33
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 16 17:20:54 EDT 2000
At 4:46 PM -0700 5/16/00, Michael Abernathy wrote:
>Harold,
>Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was while both clauses are absolute
>imperatives, my inclination would be to interpret ìna to mean that the
>respect (although expected regardless of the husbands behavior) would be
>the normative consequence of his obedience to the command to love his
>wife. I hope that is somewhat clearer.
>Sincerely
>Michael Abernathy
In my opinion this is rather questionable; hINA + subjunctive does not
normally introduce a RESULT clause but rather a purpose clause, and in this
case I personally doubt it's a purpose clause either. I think the hINA
clause is a substantive clause; since there's a DE with it, I'd take it as
an added imperative equivalent to the first one which is actually expressed
with the morphological imperative: "and that the wife should respect her
husband."
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000516/bec36380/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list