From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Feb 07 1998 - 15:04:13 EST
At 4:21 AM -0600 2/7/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>> The text: hWS DE EPOREUONTO KATA THN hODON, HLQON EPI TI hUDWR, KAI FHSIN
>> hO EUNOUCOS, 'IDOU hUDWR, TI KWLUEI ME BAPTISQHNAI?'
>> I haven't done a search for FHMI in the GNT, but I'll say that this is
>> consistent with classical Attic style's use of FHMI to indicate a direct
>> quotation; more often than not, I believe, when LEGW is used, the cited
>> quotation is introduced by an untranslated hOTI. This sort of convention
>> may seem strange to moderns who have punctuation clearly delineating direct
>> citations, but it was one way for ancient Greek to indicate the distinction
>> clearly, and I think that's what we have in this instance.
>I looked into this a little more. Smyth 2017(a) states that FHMI is used with
>hOTI more often after the classical period. BDF 397(3) states that FHMI is
>hardly ever takes hOTI in the classical period but does occasionally in the
>Koine period. I followed this up with a search in Accordance and found that
>FHMI is used with hOTI in Rom. 3:8, 1 Cor. 10:19, 15:50 (the same examples
>cited by BDF). My search with LEGW followed by hOTI produced something on the
>order of 200 hits. Therefore, the pattern that Carl has pointed out still
>seems to be valid for NT usage.
>A Follow on question:
>One question that came up in my brief research was the distinction between the
>use of FHMI as an infinitive and as a finite verb in the historical present.
>Both BDF and Smyth spend some time talking about how the infinitive of FHMI is
>used when introducing speech. I don't think they clearly explained the
>difference between the infinitive use and the finite use when introducing
>speech. Could anyone expound on this?
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
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
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).
I don't have Smyth handy, but I would have thought it would be there. This
is what's taught generally in Beginning Attic Greek grammar.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT