From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 07 1998 - 07:56:25 EST
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> When used with the infinitive and the subject-accusative FHMI quite
> regularly means, "I assert that X does/did/will do (etc.) Y"; when negated
> with OU, OU FHMI with subject-accusative means, "I deny that X
> does/did/will do (etc.) Y." When you have this usage the acc. + inf. tends
> to follow immediately upon the form of FHMI. This is the standard classical
> Attic way of indicating information given by a source that is not being
> cited directly.
> On the other hand, when FHMI is being used to indicate a direct citation,
> what one generally gets is much like what one gets with Latin
> INQUIT/INQUIUNT, i.e., the verb FHSI(N), FASI(N), EFH, EFASAN KTL. is
> sandwiched in the middle, normally of the direct citation, e.g. (I'm making
> this up):
> ALL' hHMEIS, EFH, OU TAUTA POIHSOMEN.
> "But we," he said, "won't be doing that."
> When I looked at this in Schmoller's Handkonkordanz this morning, I even
> noted that it distinguished these usages in the NT in terms of the Latin
> equivalents as (1) DICO (= LEGW), (2) AIO (= FHMI + acc/inf),
> INQUAM/INQUIT/INQUIUNT (= FHMI interlaced into the direct citation).
So the reason I was confused was that BDF and Smyth were not drawing a
distinction between FHMI in the infinitive and finite forms. Rather, they
were making a distinction based on what follows FHMI. It is FHMI + acc. + inf.
that has the special sense indicated above.
> This is what's taught generally in Beginning Attic Greek grammar.
So this is a very basic question. No doubt there are others like me who need
to ask basic questions.
Thank you Carl, for your untiring assistance.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT