[B-Greek] 2Cor. 11:5 LOGIZOMAI w/inf w/o acc
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Dec 16 17:41:58 EST 2009
On Wednesday, December 16, 2009, at 03:14PM, "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:
>2COR. 11:5 LOGIZOMAI GAR MHDEN hUSTERHKENAI TWN hUPERLIAN APOSTOLWN.
>.
>2Cor. 11:5 Λογίζομαι γὰρ μηδὲν
>ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν
>ἀποστόλων.
>.
> PHIL. 3:13 ADELFOI, EGW EMAUTON OU LOGIZOMAI KATEILHFENAI· hEN DE,
>TA MEN OPISW EPILANQANOMENOS TOIS DE EMPROSQEN EPEKTEINOMENOS,
>.
>Phil. 3:13 ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ
>λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι· ἓν δέ, τὰ
>μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος τοῖς δὲ
>ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος,
>
>M.J. Harris (2Cor NIGTC 2005 p746) concerning 2COR. 11:5 "There are no
>grammatical ambiguities in the verse." LOGIZOMAI with the infinititive
>hUSTERHKENAI does not require an accusative when the subject of the
>infinitive is the same as the subject of the main verb (BDF 392.1).
>However, in PHIL. 3:13 we see LOGIZOMAI with the infinitive
>KATEILHFENAI where EMAUTON is supplied.
>What can we learn by comparing LOGIZOMAI w/inf in 2COR. 11:5 with
>EGW EMAUTON OU LOGIZOMAI KATEILHFENAI in PHIL. 3:13? I am not thinking
>about syntax. Both are well formed constructions in Koine Greek. Why
>would Paul use LOGIZOMAI without an acc. pronoun in 2COR. 11:5 but
>include EMAUTON in PHIL. 3:13. According to the linguistic framework I
>am using choices like this have reasons. They are not a matter of
>indifference.
This may not be enough to satisfy you in terms of your linguistic framework,
but (a) I'm not convinced that writers/speakers are perfectly consistent in
usage in all their writing/speaking, and (b) perhaps more to the point, there's
a heavy emphasis on the first person in Phil 3:13; I think that the EGW and
EMAUTON make an emphatic point about Paul's personal sense of where
he is in contradistinction from where others may suppose they stand.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list