Thessalonikeis' Infinitive!
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 20 16:41:31 EDT 2002
At 8:16 AM -0400 4/20/02, Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:
>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.
I don't see why you'd claim #3 as an exception above: it's a predicate noun
of an unexpressed nominative subject which would, if expressed, be AUTOS:
>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?
I think that Manolis' genitive would be meant to construe with CREIAN: "You
don't have need OF ME to write you." But I rather think that CREIAN ECETE
is a sort of periphrasis: CREIAN ECETE GRAFEIN = CRH EME hUMIN GRAFEIN.
The fact that FILADELFIAS is in the genitive has nothing to do with the
case in hand: that genitive is object of PERI.
I don't think that what Smyth states is any less true in Koine Greek, but I
think that substantive clauses introduced by hWS and hOTI + indicative or
by hINA + subjunctive have become much more common in Koine, so that we
might readily imagine or find equivalents such as OU CREIAN ECETE hINA
GRAFW hUMIN. When CREIAN ECW takes an object, the object is regularly
genitive (an objective genitive with the verbal noun CREIA); but "You don't
need (for) me to write you" = "You don't need that I should write you."
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 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/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list