From: Carlton L. Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 28 1996 - 08:35:39 EST
Stephen Clock wrote;
>Translating through Ephesians 5:17 we came upon another puzzler re which I
>would welcome anyone's comments. [BTW, you folks have been *great* at
>answering my questions! Much appreciated.]
>The Nestle's text reads ...ALLA SUNIETE TI TO ThELHMA TOU KURIOU. We were
>trying to classify all the nouns, and got stumped on TI and TO. Being
>neuters both, they can obviously be Nominatives or Accusatives. If SUNIETE
>is the correct reading, it seems that TI would have to be accusative, direct
>object to the verb. The problem is that the statement requires ESTIN to make
>sense. That being so, TI TO ThELHMA would then be a predicate Nominative
>construction, wouldn't it? Or am I completely missing the point? I've never
>heard of accusatives joined by EIMI of GINOMAI etc. The best I can do with
>this is to see TI TO ThELHMA etc a predicate nominative statement-by form,
>but an objective clause- by function, (to SUNIETE).
>The Received Text reads...ALLA SUNIENTES TI TO ThELHMA TOU KURIOU.
>SUNIENTES being a participle expands the responsibility of the readers
>stated in the finite verb MH GINESThE... But this reading leaves us with
>the same dilemna in trying to classify TI and TO ThELHMA.
I would add to what Carl Conrad said. TI is the neuter of the indefinite
pronoun TIS and functions in this sentence as a relative pronoun. As Carl
said the whole clause serves as the direct object (showing indirect
discourse) of the imperative verb or participle. Within the clause TI
would be the subject (nominative) and TO QELHMA is the predicate nominative
with the verb ESTIN understood.
fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:39 EDT