[B-Greek] TI in Gal 2.6
gfsomsel at juno.com
gfsomsel at juno.com
Mon Nov 29 08:20:54 EST 2004
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:48:54 -0600 Eric Sowell
<eric.sowell at lexelsoftware.com> writes:
> Hmmm...that does seem to be the correct. I figured this might be a
> case
> of the "I forgot that construction existed" syndrome :). I do that
> all
> the time... I'm not sure where you looked, Steven, but I just
> checked
> the Bibleworks morphology and it is also an accusative there. Thanks
> for
> the thoughts, guys. I like to learn things!
>
> Eric
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> >At 10:20 PM -0600 11/28/04, Eric Sowell wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It is the predicate of EINAI, but since EINAI is an infinitive, it
> would
> >>take both subjects and predicates in the accusative. See also Luke
> 4:41
> >>for another example, or Wallace's grammar (if you have it) under
> >>"Predicate Accusative" (pg 191) for more examples.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't think this is quite right, and in fact, I believe that the
> TI is
> >indeed a predicate word with EINAI depending on DOKOUNTWN but that
> it
> >should be understood as nominative rather than accusative--that is,
> I think
> >that Steven was right and the tagging is wrong.
> >
> >Lk 4:41 is different: HiDEISAN TON CRISTON AUTON EINAI; here the
> entire
> >phrase TON CRISTON AUTON EINAI is object of HiDEISAN, AUTON is the
> subject
> >of the infinitive and TON CRISTON is the predicate word.
> >
> >BDAG s.v. DOKEW §2 a. intr.
> > alpha: have the appearance ...
> > beta: be influential, be recognized as being something,
> have a
> >reputation (cp. Sus 5; 2 Macc 1:13. hOI DOKOUNTES (Eur., Hec 295;
> >Petosiris, fgm 6 In. 58 hOI DOKOUNTES = the prominent dignitaries;
> Herodian
> >6,1,1; Jos. C. Ap. 1, 67) the influential men Gal 2:2, 6b. A fuller
> >expression with the same meaning, with inf. added (X., Cyr. 7, 1,
> 41; Pla,
> >Gorg 472a, Euthd 303c hOI DOKOUNTES EINAI TI; Plut. Mor 212b
> DOKOUNTAS
> >EINAI TINAS; Epict., Ench 33, 12; Herodian 4, 2,5; Philo, Mos. 2,
> 241) vss.
> >6a, 9 (Pla., Apol. 6, 21b hOI DOKOUNTES SOFOI EINAI) ...
> >
> n usages cited there we see the nominative of the predicate word when
> the
> >subject of DOKOUNTES is nominative, the accusative with DOKOUNTAS
> EINAI.
> >
> >The construction in our text (Gal 2:6) is different in that the
> participle
> >is itself in the genitive plural: TWN DOKOUNTWN; even so, "having a
> >reputation as being something" involves DOKEW in an intransitive
> >construction rather than in a transitive one taking an accusative
> object as
> >in Lk 4:41 where the subject-infinitive-predicate construction is
> >controlled by the verb OIDA which does take the oratio obliqua
> construction
> >in the accusative.
> >
> >cf. also LSJ DOKEW II. 5. 5. to be reputed, c. inf., Pi.O.13.56,
> P.6.40;
> >axioi humin dokountes Th.1.76 ; dokountes einai ti men who are held
> to be
> >something, men of repute, Pl. Grg.472a; to dokein tines einai . .
> >proseilêphotes D.21.213 ; to phronein edokei tis einai perittos
> Plu.Arist.1
> >; hoi dokountes Heraclit.28 (dub.), E.Hec.295; ta dokounta, opp. ta
> mêden
> >onta,
> >
> >One might also have a look at Smyth §§1982, 1983.
> >
> >Since the form TI could be either nominative or accusative, there's
> really
> >no way of affirming that in our instance it is one rather than the
> other,
> >although, as I've said, I really think it is nominative here and
> should be
> >so tagged. I'm reminded of Joshua Whatmough declaring once that he
> thought
> >the accusative absolute ought really to be understood as a
> nominative
> >absolute but that it could never be proved because the forms would
> be
> >identical.
>> >
> >>Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
> >>
> >>>One last question for today.
> >>>
> >>>Gal 2.6 APO DE TWN DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI...
> >>>
> >>>Both tagged texts I have mark TI as neuter singular accusative.
> Why is
> >>>this? Isn't TI the predicate of EINAI, and shouldn't it therefore
> be
> >>>nominative? What am I missing?
> >>>============
> >>>
> >>>Steven Lo Vullo
> >>>Madison, WI
_________________
Text:
APO DE TWN DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI . . .
I would consider it rather risky to check one program's tagging by
reference to another since I believe that all of these go back to a
common source. If one is right / wrong, then all are right / wrong.
I must cautiously tend to disagree with Carl at this point. One might
compare Eph 1.12 where there is similarly a prepositional phrase involved
EIS TO EINAI hHMAS EIS EPAINON DOCHS AUTOU . . .
hHMAS must here be acc., but I really don't think it is really
comparable. Probably more to the point would be Philippians 3.8
ALLA MENOUNGE KAI hHGOUMAI PANTA ZHMIAN EINAI . . .
ZHMIAN can be nothing other than acc. being a fem. and is the obj. of the
acc. EINAI.
george
gfsomsel
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list