From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 07 1999 - 06:54:23 EDT
<x-rich>At 7:17 PM -0500 10/6/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
<excerpt>At 12:20 AM +0200 10/7/99, Kevin Smith wrote:
In discussing the use of the Greek infinitive, Daniel Wallace (GGBB,
606) says, "Like any other substantive, the substantival infinitive may
stand in apposition to a noun, pronoun, or substantival adjective (or
some other substantive)." After further explanation he includes in his
list of examples Titus 2:2, in which he says the infinitive is in
apposition "to an implied pronoun" (p. 607).
Titus 2:1-2 reads:  SU DE LALEI hA PREPEI THi hUGIAINOUSHi
DIDASKALIAi.  PRESBUTAS NHFALIOUS <bold>EINAI</bold>, SEMNOUS,
SWFRONAS, hUGIAINONTAS THi PISTEI, THi AGAPH, THi hUPOMONHi.
The verse seems to make perfect sense without my needing to supply any
pronoun. Can anyone tell me what pronoun Dr Wallace regards as implicit
here, and why?
Well, there are a couple ways to construe it. I rather suspect that
what Wallace has in mind is that the entire infinitive phrase PRESBUTAS
EINAI X, Y, Z, KTL. stands in opposition to the implicit subject of hA
PREPEI THi hUGIAINOUSHi DIDASKALIAi, which would be perhaps an implicit
EKEINA, or TAUTA--those things.
For "stands in opposition ..., etc." in the third line of my note,
please read "stands in APPOSITION ... " Perhaps that should have been
obvious, but when I read such things they aren't always obvious to me,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:41 EDT