From: Edgar M. Krentz (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Nov 01 1995 - 20:28:55 EST
>Edgar M. Krentz wrote:
>>I think Luke 14:18 is *not* an example of EXW plus a participle as a
>I agree...otherwise the verse would mean "I have to go..." (I don't make 'em
>up, I just report 'em).
>>The Greek is EXW ANAGKHN EXELQWN IDEIN AUTON. In this
>>construction the object of the RXW is the infintive IDEIN; the participle
>>EXELQWN can be construed either as modifying the subject in EXW or as an
>>adverbial participle expressing attendant circumstance with the verb. The
>>presence of the infinitive makes it impossible as a periphrastic.
>>But then again, maybe someone will refute me on the basis of a different
>I must disagree, based on the parsing :-)
>As we all know the Greek verb RXW (check the posting carefully), pronounced
>like the cartoon character Rocko (I don't believe there is any connection,
>but I could
>be wrong; perhaps we have a semantio-linguio-etymologenarian on the list who
>could more accurately speak to that issue). This Greek word has been
>heavily influenced from the Latin, as in "Don't rocko the boat" (this has
>something to do with Livia's attempt on the life of one of the heirs to
>Augustus' throne). Well, I believe all of you can see the implications of
>this...., can't you ????
>Oh, one other minor, nit-picking point...IDEIN isn't the direct object of
>EXW, since that would give it a double direct object with ANAGKHN; IDEIN is
>an epexegetical infinitive to ANAGKHN, a fairly common occurrence.
I'm sure glad I put that smiley face at the end of my posting. If I knew
how to put a red face in, I would do it now. That pesky verb RXW! Since
reading Dale Wheeler's posting, I have been trying to figure out the
etymology for this very rare verb. Beyond those suggesed by Dale there may
be other possibilities! Could ite be an apocopated ARXW? Did I mean to
write the Hebrew triconsonantal stem RXM and mistype it? It could be I was
trying to avoid vengeance. I am not a devotee of ROCK music, so it didn't
come from there. The implications are clearly manifold; good thing Dale put
that term in the plural, nicht?
My face really is red, however, for the parsing blunder I made with the
infinitive IDEIN. Dale Wheeler [and earlier Carlton Winbery, who made a
more silent correction] are both correct in identifying ANAGKHN as the
direct object and IDEIN as an epexegetical infinitive, one that
Goodwin-Gulick, par. 1532 describe as "Any adjective or adverb may take an
infinitive to limit its meaning to a particular action (_epexegetic
infinitive)" and in par. 1534 describe as a limiting infinitive: "Nouns and
even verbs may take the infinitive as a limiting accusative (1056)." [I had
to get that accusative in there somehow.] That limiting infinitive after a
verb I was taught to call a supplementary infinitive way back when. How I
wish that grammatical terminology could have been standardized to conform
to the language of Herbert Weir Smythe.
I am glad that my rejection of Luke 14:18 as an excample of EXW + particple
as a periphrastic survived Dale's aetic [my neologism] eye.
Anyway, thanks to Dale Wheeler for both the correction and the spice with
which it came. :-) and then some.
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT