Thessalonikeis' Infinitive!

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sat Apr 20 08:16:22 EDT 2002


In a message dated 4/20/2002 5:13:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com writes:

I agree: an implied TINOS (not TINA) or EMOU would be the best way to
understand the passage:

OU CREIAN ECETE EMOU GRAFEIN UMIN.
_____________________

That would be a genitive.  I thought the subject of the infinitive was always 
in the accusative.  Smyth states [I have taken the liberty of numbering his 
examples]
____________________________
§936. Subject of the Infinitive.--The subject of the infinitive is in the 
accusative:

1. EKELEUON AUTOUS PROEUESQAI

They ordered that they should proceed X.A.4.2.1.
a. See 1975.   On the nominative subject of the infinitive, see 1973.
______________________

§1973.  When the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the 
governing verb, it is omitted, and a predicate noun stands in the nominative 
case. 

2. OIMAI EIDENAI 

I think that I know P.Pr. 312e,

3. PERSHS EFH EINAI 

he said he was a Persian X.A.4.4.17, 

4. EGW OUK hOMOLOGHSW AKLHTOS HKEIN

I shall not admit that I have come uninvited P.S. 174d, 

5. hOMOLOGEIS PERI EME ADIKOS GEGENHSQAI?

DO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GUILTY AS REGARDS ME? x.a.1.6.8 (CF. 4.2.27 
IN 2263).
_____________________

In both sections Smyth mentions a nominative case.  The problem is that it is 
OMITTED.  The one exception is example #3 above.  PERSHS is a nominative.  It 
is declinable, and the accusative is PERSEA.  Nevertheless, I'm curious why 
Manolis would give the genitive as the subject when the preferred subject of 
the infinitive is the accusative.  I realize that FILADELFIAS is in the 
genitive, but I would still expect the accusative.  Perhaps he can enlighten 
us regarding this.  Alternatively, does one of our classical experts [hint, 
hint, Carl] know whether this is a modern development or is it true in other 
periods as well?

gfsomsel



More information about the B-Greek mailing list