[B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 6 14:40:35 EST 2011


Hi, Carl,

I did not assume that the presence or absence of the article with the infinitive 
made no difference.  On the contrary, I assumed that it did, since the grammars 
seem to make a big deal out of stuff like this.  But in reading actual Greek, I 
notice again and again that the generalizations from the grammars work when they 
work and often they just don't.  Maybe this is what Funk is saying here

<8310. There is no clear line of demarcation between the functions of the 
anarthrous infinitive and those of the articular infinitive, except that the 
anarthrous infinitive never occurs in p-clusters as the object of a preposition, 
and the articular infinitive does not occur in verb chains of Group I 
(§§567-573).>

although he lost me a little on the last bit.

But again, go back to Adrian's question.  Check out 1 Thes 4:3-6 and tell me why 
the article is used with  TO MH hUPERBAINEIN in verse 6 and not with APECESQAI 
in v. 3 or EIDENAI in v.4.  I think it just did sound better that way.  It's not 
flipping a coin, but some language is not as conscious as the analysis of it 
would assume.  Again, it's not a matter of

 <of which formulations were suitable in particular constructions>

because in these two epistles you find the article there or not there in the 
same constructions. 


 Mark L



FWSFOROS MARKOS




________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
Cc: Gene Cockerham <Gene.Cockerham at ncpres.org>; bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk; 
b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 11:56:59 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive


On Jan 6, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:

> Gene and Carl did a good job of explaining the construction, but Adrian's 
> question was why, in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,  the infinitive, in the same 
> constructions, sometimes has the article and sometimes does not. I think that 
> was a very good question. 
> 
> 
> I reread these two letters yesterday and I noticed the same thing.  Sometimes 
> the article is there with the infinitive in a given construction and sometimes 

> it is not.  In general, and certainly in the citations that Adrian gave, I can 

> find no real difference in meaning.   The article was less common in poetry, so 
>
> I believe that the  Greeks were hard-wired to take it or leave it and did so in 
>
> the interest of variety and euphony as much as semantic nuance. Paul probably 
> did not even think about it, and so perhaps neither should we.

I really don't quite know what it means to be "hard-wired to take it or leave 
it" --
but this sounds to me like saying it's altogether arbitrary whether or not an
ancient author should choose to use an article with an infinitive or not: did 
s/he
flip a coin? did s/he ask, "does it sound better with or without an article?"?
While I think I'd agree that Paul probably didn't even think about it, I would
suppose that he didn't need to think about it because he had a ready command
of which formulations were suitable in particular constructions.

Rather than assume that it makes no difference whether or not an article is
used with an infinitive, I think it would be wise to review what one of the
better Koine grammars has to say about inifinitive usage. I would recommend:

Funk's Beginning-Intermediate Hellenistic Greek Grammar (BIGHG):
Lesson 57: The Verb/Infinitive
THE INFINITIVE: RANGE OF FUNCTIONS

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/funk-grammar/pre-alpha/lesson-57.html

I think too that beginning or intermediate grammars might do well to group 
together
discussions of such items as, "How is purpose expressed in a subordinate 
construction?"
Then one might compare and contrast the usages of (1) hINA + subjunctive,
(2) hWSTE + infinitive, (3) EIS TO + infinitive, (4) TOU + infinitive, (5) 
future
participle ...  -- I don't know offhand whether that's exhaustive, but these are 
common
modes, worth illustrating by exampels readily found throughout the GNT.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

> ________________________________
> From: Gene Cockerham <Gene.Cockerham at ncpres.org>
> To: bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 8:26:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
> 
> J Gresham Machen
> Lesson XXII
> Paragraphs 301-305
> In general - the Greek infinitive is a verbal noun and so like any other
> noun can take the article. With an article the infinitive can stand in
> the place of most nouns.  "Thus, KALON ESTI TO APOTHANEIN HUPER TWN
> ADELFWN, means the act of dying in behalf of the brethren is good..."
> Here TO APOTHANEIN is a noun in the nominative case, being the subject
> of the verb ESTI."
> 
> Sorry for the quoted section - I do not have the experience that many of
> the contributors of this list serve - hopefully someone can expound on
> this if necessary.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On  Behalf Of
> bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:16 AM
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [B-Greek] Use of TO with Infinitive
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I keep coming across a construction using TO + infinitive, and I am not
> sure what difference the article makes to the meaning compared to using
> the infinitive on its own.  Some examples would be:
> 
> TO MH hUPERBAINEIN.... (1Thess4:6)
> ....EIS TO AGAPAN ALLHLOUS (1Thess4:9)
> ENDEIGMA THS DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU, EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI....
> (2Thess1:5)
> EIS TO MH TACEWS SALEUQHNAI.... (2Thess2:2)
> 
> Would somebody please be kind enough to explain to me what difference
> the use of the  article makes to the meaning?
> 
> Many thanks
> Adrian  Clark


      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list