[B-Greek] TI in Gal 2.6
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Nov 29 08:59:43 EST 2004
At 8:20 AM -0500 11/29/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:
>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.
Sure, George, but the second of these is like Lk 4:41 where the EINAI links
the object of a verb of deeming with a predicate accusative; the first is a
substantive infinitive which normally takes a subject accusative. These are
esentially different from verbs that are used intransitively like FAINOMAI,
e.g. Mt 23:27 EXWQEN FAINOINTAI hWRAIOI (scil. EINAI) and DOKEW, e.g. Lk
22:24 TIS AUTWN DOKEI EINAI MEIZWN
You need to look at the BDAG and LSJ entries that I cited.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list