Re: Genitive articular infinitive equals purpose? (was "RE: Articular Infinitive in Phlp. 3.10")

From: Carlton Winbery (
Date: Fri Apr 24 1998 - 09:40:13 EDT

Perry Stepp wrote;

>When we studied the prison epistles (Ph.D. seminar at Baylor a few years
>ago), I remember noticing that most if not all of the genitive articular
>infinitives I could find expressed purpose. I wonder if this is consistent
>enough to be considered a general rule--to wit, "when you see a genitive
>articular infinitive, think purpose first"? Dr. Winbery, are you listening?
>Dr. Conrad?
>I'm looking at Brooks and Winbery, p. 134ff. They list TOU + infinitive
>under both purpose and result. But I think both the listed examples used
>for TOU + infinitive expressing result could also express purpose. Are
>there better examples, where TOU + infinitive clearly *doesn't* express
I would agree that the vast majority of infitives with the article TOU show
purpose. It seemed to us that there were some occasions where result was
indicated in the context. Most of the time the infinitive of result will
be indicated by hWSTE or EIS TO. Admittedly, it is not always possible to
distinguish between purpose and result since purpose itself is an intended
result. Another possible inf. with TOU that can be interpreted as result

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:35 EDT