Imperatival Infinitives (e.g., Rom 12:15)

Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Imperatival Infinitives (e.g., Rom 12:15)

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Romans 12:15 RP wrote:Χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων, καὶ κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων.
"To rejoice with those who rejoice, and to kry with those who cry"

I can't understand how the infinitives fit into the overal syntax and flow of the passage here. The verse before contains imperatives, and the verses following and before contain participles that seem to fit as details or ways to carry out the imperatives, but the infinitives here just don't seem to fit together with the rest of it.

The only thoughts that I can come up with is that;
  • (1) There is sort of an understood πρέπον ἐστὶν "it is suitable (to ...)" to suggest that one should be empathetic with the enemies, perhaps? Or
    (2) That it goes as a pregnant clause with the following verse directly
    Romans 12:16a wrote:Τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες.
    "Being of the same mind with one another (so that you can rejoice with those who rejoice, and to cry with those who cry.)" = being empathetic, [so that you can relate to other people's life circumstances .. rather than sitting on your high horse (Μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες verse 16b)]
Almost all the English versions translate this as an imperative.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by cwconrad »

While it's not very common, the infinitive sometimes functions in an imperatival sense. See BDF §389
389. The imperatival infinitive is extremely old and is especially common in Homer, while in Attic it has become less frequent (Schwyzer II 380; subject in nom.). It is limited in the NT to two passages in Paul, both without subject; when the subject is to be expressed, even Paul uses ἵνα: E 5:33 (§387(3)).

R 12:15 χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων, κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων, Ph 3:16 πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν; but cf. also Lk 9:3 μηδὲν αἴρετε … μήτε ἀνὰ δύο χιτῶνας ἔχειν. A governing verb (of saying, or χρή, δεῖ) can readily be supplied everywhere in the NT passages (which was not the case with the old imperatival inf.); cf. the accusatives with inf. in T 2:2–10 with a single occurrence of παρακάλει in v. 6. The salutatory inf. χαίρειν in epistolary style (A 15:23, 23:26, Ja 1:1 [§480(5)]) is likewise clearly elliptical. The independent inf. (with any modifiers belonging to the subj. in the acc.) or acc. with inf. in legal phraseology (λέγειν ‘one must say’ = λεκτέον, κεῖνον ἀπόλλυσθαι ‘he must die’) is also the result of a subsequent detachment of a governing δοκεῖ etc.; cf. Schwyzer II 383; Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus s.v. Infinitiv. The better reading in 2 T 2:14 is μὴ λογομάχει AC* latt (pm. -χεῖν, conceived as dependent upon διαμαρτυρόμενος). Is IEph 11.1 μόνον ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εὑρεθῆναι imperatival or a loose addition (§391(4)) to ἢ … φοβηθῶμεν ἢ … ἀγαπήσωμεν? Imperatival inf. in the pap. Mayser II 1, 150f., 303–5 (primarily in official orders and the like). Interchange of impera. and inf. (Lk 9:3) e.g. PEleph 1.4 (311 BC) παρεχέτω Ἡρακλείδης πάντα, εἶναι δὲ ἡμᾶς ….—Rob. 1092f.; Moule 126f.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Okay, I get that. There is a legacy form that I am not familiar with. Sometimes old forms get thrown in for reasons that are not easy for someone of my limited Greek to see why.

NB. This is about to become a rather complex question, which perhaps wouldn't generally suit a beginners' forum, but I suppose that a difficult passage with a rare form requires a more difficult level of questioning and understanding.

Do you have any incling as to why that might happen? Why here in the middle of a passage? I get that this is a form and it has a special name and so on, but what is special about this place that makes it fit here? Why not use the imperative form that was used in the previous verse, or the participles that surround our verse? What triggered the use of an archaic form here?

I had half suspected that it would be a second infinitive after the Παρακαλῶ ... ὑμᾶς "I beg of you ..." in Romans 12:1, but it seems so far away from that construction, so I dismissed it. Was that offhanded dismissal valid? Is that sense still current here? Also...

After reading your quote from BDF, I'd also appreciate it if you could criticis my undestanding of that example of the Old Imperatival Infinitive from Philipians.
Philipians 3:16 wrote:πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ ⸀στοιχεῖν."

It seems to me that in the SBL type text, there is the possibility that there is a sort of balance here between the εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν "up to what we have already attained" (NIV) on the one hand and the τῷ αὐτῷ {"to that same much"} (let us live up to (NIV). In this understanding (that the ὃ in the first phrase represents the τῷ αὐτῷ in the second) it seems to me that the Infinitive can sort of gets its potentiality from the first part of the sentence. Is that a true Old Imperatival Infinitive?

There is another possibility (that seeming followed by for example the RSV "let us hold true to what we have attained.") where the στοιχεῖν is clearly taken as the Old Imperatival Infinitive that you have brought to light.

In the Majority text of the verse;
Philipians 3:16 RP wrote:πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν κανόνι, τὸ ἀυτὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν
"Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." (NKJV) There appears be be no choice but to take both of those infinitives as Old Imperatival Infinitive. The ὃ can't equate with the τῷ αὐτῷ since the τῷ αὐτῷ goes with κανόνι. Is that possible?? Can the demonstrative phrase be interupted by a verb τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν κανόνι? ("Walk by the same standard") and clearly τὸ ἀυτὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν could also easily be taken as an Old Imperatival Infinitive as your quoted reference suggests.

As far as I understand an infinitive, it has no power to do anything - no expression of person, no expression of number, no expression of aspect - in this case for these first aorist verbs - no expression of time, and no expression of mood (the imperative being a mood) at all in themselves, so they need to rely on their surroundings for everything. Is that a valid way of thinking? What (if we take the SBL text in the sense of an Old Imperatival infinitive and of course in the RP text) is their in their surrounds that could give them that potentiality to get the force needed to make people do things?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Bruce McKinnon
Posts: 37
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 3:49 pm

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by Bruce McKinnon »

My guess why Paul switched to imperative infinitives in this verse is that he did so for stylistic variation. In addition, the result is alliteration of the consonant at the end of the infinitives and their corresponding participles. (I don't remember the technical term for this particular type of consonance, my recollection is that alliteration is strictly for when the repeated consonant occurs at the beginning of a word). If one assumes that Paul's letters were intended to be publicly read aloud rather than read in silence, this stylistic feature would be of added significance.

Cranfield does not comment on the use of infinitives in this verse. Despite the rarity of this use in the NT, Paul presumably believed that his listeners/readers would have no difficulty understanding what he meant.

Jewett in his commentary begins his discussion of this verse as follows: "The stylistic shift in v.15 from imperatives to infinitives, followed by participles in v. 16, indicates the varying origins of these paraenetic traditions." He has a footnote with scholarly references to which I do not have access. He refers to a number of Greek maxims but none uses an infinitive in an imperative sense.

So my best guess why Paul uses infinitives here remains stylistic variation linked with alliteration.
Paul-Nitz
Posts: 497
Joined: June 1st, 2011, 4:19 am
Location: Sussex, Wisconsin

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by Paul-Nitz »

Stephen,
εκτείνω δή Just a quick thought on the basis of a quick look.

It "feels" to me like Paul has a rythym in this section from vs. 9 to vs. 18 (lots of participles, no sharp breaks, flowing...)
Is Verse 14 a quotation? It would explain the break in the rhythym.
Then, Verse 15 seems like he's picking up the flow again. Imperatives here would be too sharp (or too staccato, or arhythmic).

I wonder what Performance Critics would do with this section?
Paul D. Nitz - Lilongwe Malawi
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Okay, I get that. There is a legacy form that I am not familiar with. Sometimes old forms get thrown in for reasons that are not easy for someone of my limited Greek to see why.

NB. This is about to become a rather complex question, which perhaps wouldn't generally suit a beginners' forum, but I suppose that a difficult passage with a rare form requires a more difficult level of questioning and understanding.
First of all, let's concede that this doesn't belong in the Beginners Forum at all, but in Syntax & Grammar under Language and Linguistics, perhaps with subject-header, "Imperatival infinitive." Would someone with authority and know-how please resettle it?
Stephen Hughes wrote:Do you have any incling as to why that might happen? Why here in the middle of a passage? I get that this is a form and it has a special name and so on, but what is special about this place that makes it fit here? Why not use the imperative form that was used in the previous verse, or the participles that surround our verse? What triggered the use of an archaic form here?.
And secondly, I apologize for my knee-jerk response to your question. I can now look back many years to learning what you're calling "the Old Imperatival Infinitive" in my Sophomore year while reading Homer, and to a class many years later, but still well in my own past, when a physician reading Homer with me encountered this construction and said, "Oh, that's not uncommon even in English -- I've often pointed one of my patients to a chair and said to him, "To sit!" We laughed at that but didn't think further about it. Now, as you've raised the question of what explanation there may be for this usage of the infinitive as an imperative, I realize that it is indeed a serious question.

So I've researched it a little bit further. I couldn't find the reference in Smyth readily yesterday morning, but now I have it at §2013:
2013. Infinitive in Commands.—The infinitive may be used for the second person of the imperative. The person addressed is regarded as the subject. This infinitive is commoner in poetry than in prose (where it has a solemn or formal force).
θαρσῶν νῦν, Διόμηδες, ἐπὶ Τρώεσσι μάχεσθαι with good courage now, Diomed, fight against the Trojans E 124, σὺ δέ, Κλεαρίδᾱ … τᾱ̀ς πύλᾱς ἀνοίξᾱς ἐπεκθεῖν but do you, Clearidas, open the gates and sally forth T. 5. 9.
a. This infinitive may be used in conjunction with an imperative: ἀκούετε λεῴ· κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τοὺς χόας πῑ́νειν hear ye, good people! drink the Pitchers as our sires drank! Ar. Ach. 1000.
b. The infinitive for the third person of the imperative often occurs in legal language (laws, treaties, etc.), and does not necessarily depend on the principal verb. Thus, ἔτη δὲ εἶναι τᾱ̀ς σπονδᾱ̀ς πεντήκοντα and the treaty shall continue for fifty years T. 5. 18. In this construction the infinitive has the force of an infinitive dependent on ἔδοξε (it was voted that) or the like. So in medical language, as πῑ́νειν δὲ ὕδωρ it is well for the patient to drink water Hippocrates 1. 151.
c. The infinitive (with subject accusative) is rarely used for the third person of the imperative when there is an unconscious ellipsis of a word like δός grant, or εὔχομαι I pray. Thus, τεύχεα σῡλήσᾱς φερέτω κοίλᾱς ἐπὶ νῆας, σῶμα δὲ οἴκαδʼ ἐμὸν δόμεναι πάλιν let him strip off my arms and carry them to the hollow ships, but let him give back my body to my home H 78.
d. In negative commands (prohibitions) μή with the infinitive is poetic and Ionic: οἷς μὴ πελάζειν do not approach these (= μὴ πέλαζε) A. Pr. 712, μηδὲ καλεῖν πω ὄλβιον and do not call him happy yet Hdt. 1. 32.
This account in Smyth does point to some associated factors that may apply, e.g. "unconscious ellipsis" of a verb that will be completed with an infinitive. But your question makes it clear that a fuller explanation, if there's one to be had, is called for. A Google search for "imperatival infinitive" brought up a 2010 article by Rutger Allan (of middle-voice distinction) entitled, "The infinitivus pro imperativo in Ancient Greek. The Imperatival Infinitive as an Expression of Proper Procedural Action" in Mnemosyne, Volume 63, Issue 2, pages 203 – 228. The abstract reads as follows:
In this paper, it is argued that the use of the imperatival infinitive (or, infinitivus pro imperativo) can be explained by means of the notion of procedure. The imperatival infinitive refers to the appropriate action that is to be carried out as part of a practical or conventional social procedure (script, frame) which is evoked in the discourse or by the extra-linguistic situation of the interlocutors. Unlike the imperative proper, the imperatival infinitive does not involve a direct appeal of the speaker to the hearer. As its directive force depends on the appropriateness of the action within a particular procedure, the imperatival infinitive can be seen as a more indirect type of directive expression.

The functional differences between the imperative and the imperatival infinitive can be clarified by reference to the notions of finiteness and grounding. As imperatival infinitives are not finite, they do not invoke the ground (i.e. the speech event, its participants, and its immediate circumstances), but merely designate a type of action which is not epistemically located with respect to time or reality. Unlike the imperative, therefore, the directive force of the imperatival infinitive is not anchored in the ground, but, instead, it is pragmatically implicated by the procedure at hand.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I had half suspected that it would be a second infinitive after the Παρακαλῶ ... ὑμᾶς "I beg of you ..." in Romans 12:1, but it seems so far away from that construction, so I dismissed it. Was that offhanded dismissal valid? Is that sense still current here? Also...

After reading your quote from BDF, I'd also appreciate it if you could critique my understanding of that example of the Old Imperatival Infinitive from Philippians.
Phiippians 3:16 wrote:πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ ⸀στοιχεῖν."

It seems to me that in the SBL type text, there is the possibility that there is a sort of balance here between the εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν "up to what we have already attained" (NIV) on the one hand and the τῷ αὐτῷ {"to that same much"} (let us live up to (NIV). In this understanding (that the ὃ in the first phrase represents the τῷ αὐτῷ in the second) it seems to me that the Infinitive can sort of gets its potentiality from the first part of the sentence. Is that a true Old Imperatival Infinitive?
I would understand the text as you cite it differently. It seems to me that εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν has the ring of an idiomatic expression with the sense, "at this point" or "for the present" or "at this station of our journey", and that τῷ αὐτῷ ⸀στοιχεῖν has the ring of another idiomatic expression with the sense, "Keep on keeping on" or "Don't switch horses now" or "Stay the course" or "keep following the rule." You go on to citing the Majority Text with its κάνονι appended to τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν; my guess is that some scribe added κὰνονι to clarify the sense I've suggested. At any rate, I don't think that τῷ αὐτῷ refers back to the ὃ of ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, but rather goes with an implicit referent like κάνονι, yielding the sense, "Stick with the rule we've followed thus far" or, more 'literally', "walk by the same (rule that we have observed) up to the point to which we have come."
Stephen Hughes wrote:There is another possibility (that seeming followed by for example the RSV "let us hold true to what we have attained.") where the στοιχεῖν is clearly taken as the Old Imperatival Infinitive that you have brought to light.

In the Majority text of the verse;
Philipians 3:16 RP wrote:πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν κανόνι, τὸ ἀυτὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν
"Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." (NKJV) There appears be be no choice but to take both of those infinitives as Old Imperatival Infinitive. The ὃ can't equate with the τῷ αὐτῷ since the τῷ αὐτῷ goes with κανόνι. Is that possible?? Can the demonstrative phrase be interupted by a verb τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν κανόνι? ("Walk by the same standard") and clearly τὸ ἀυτὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν could also easily be taken as an Old Imperatival Infinitive as your quoted reference suggests.

As far as I understand an infinitive, it has no power to do anything - no expression of person, no expression of number, no expression of aspect - in this case for these first aorist verbs - no expression of time, and no expression of mood (the imperative being a mood) at all in themselves, so they need to rely on their surroundings for everything. Is that a valid way of thinking? What (if we take the SBL text in the sense of an Old Imperatival infinitive and of course in the RP text) is their in their surrounds that could give them that potentiality to get the force needed to make people do things?
What I've said above is as far as I can take it. Perhaps someone can read and tell us more about what Rutger Allan has to say, but it does seem clear that the usage of this imperatival infinitive depends upon a discerned conditioning factor in what precedes its use.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Shirley Rollinson
Posts: 437
Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Location: New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by Shirley Rollinson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Romans 12:15 RP wrote:Χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων, καὶ κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων.
"To rejoice with those who rejoice, and to kry with those who cry"

I can't understand how the infinitives fit into the overal syntax and flow of the passage here. The verse before contains imperatives, and the verses following and before contain participles that seem to fit as details or ways to carry out the imperatives, but the infinitives here just don't seem to fit together with the rest of it.

- - - snip snip - - -
Almost all the English versions translate this as an imperative.
It is part of the sequence which begins in Romans 12:1
παρακαλω οὐν ὑμας . . . παραστησαι τα σωματα ὑμων . . .
(or Romans 12:3)
Λεγω γαρ . . . παντι τῳ ὀντι ἐν ὑμιν μη ὑπερφρονειν . . .

Just my two sesterces
Shirley Rollinson
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 12:15 How do the infinitives fit into the syntax he

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Shirley Rollinson wrote:It is part of the sequence which begins in Romans 12:1
παρακαλω οὐν ὑμας . . . παραστησαι τα σωματα ὑμων . . .
I considered that early on. It is a good few minutes of reverential reading and listening later to pick up another infinitive. That would take a super-long reading of the παρακαλῶ it show that it might be possible, and there is no καί before this one that in verse 15. The older I get, the more problematic that gap is likely to become. Black suggest that the whole verb might not be understood, but that a general sense may be carried forward, with what he calls an "implied verb".
David Allen Black, [i]It's still Greek to me[/i], pg 118, Infinitives sec. 9 wrote:9. Imperatival Infinitive. On rare occasions, the infinitive may stand alone as the main verb and be used to express a command. There are only a few New Testament examples of this use, and these may also be considered complementary or indirect-discourse infinitives with implied verbs.
  • χαίρειν μετὰ χαιρόντων, κλαίειν μετὰ κλαιόντων, rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep (Rom. 12:15)
  • πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι, older men are to be sober minded (Titus 2:2)
His second example here opens the possibility that 3rd person imperatives may also be expressed as infinitives. Is that the usage that was in earlier Greek.

The idea that Hebrew syntax, where an initial imperative is followed by ו (Vav) + infinitive absolute (as described by Scott N. Callaham, Modality and the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute) has directly influenced the syntax here in Romans seems to go against general scholarly concensus, eg.
Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint wrote:NT Greek is best understood not as a peculiar semitized (sic.) dialect but as a true representative of living Koine Greek.
and because it doesn't have a conjunctive that doesn't seem to be plausible either.

I'm not the first person to wonder about this question of connectedness. There is a "thread" on the archieves from 1999 following a question asked by Mike Sangrey Rom. 12:15 infinitives, which people might like to look through. It is a bit of an ethically delicate tight-rope, but I'll bring a few things from that discussion knowing that the authours themselves can't respond, hoping that like minded others will respond if needs be - like quoting books written by previous generations.
Jim West in the archives wrote:Paul likes to mix his partciples and infinitives with imperatives and indicatives. He does it to break the monotony.
I had thought this was a possibility, but given that the imperatival infinitive is so rare, so I now think such a sentiment is vague at best.

Hutson draws attention to a parallel in Aristophanes;
Christopher R Hutson in the archives wrote:These two infinitives in 15 are parallel to the two imperatives in 14. This
is a good example of imperatival infinitive. The imperatival infinitive
sounds a little odd to English ears, because we don't use it much. But *not
to worry*! Look at BDF 389 for an explanation. For classical usage, see
Smyth 2013, which cites Aristophanes, Achanarians (sic.) 1000 (sic.), a nice parallel to
Rom 12:14-15, in that it contains an imperative followed by an imperatival
infinitive:

ἀκούετε λεῴ: κατὰ τὰ πάτρια τοὺς Χοᾶς 1000
πίνειν ὑπὸ τῆς σάλπιγγος:

Smyth translates: "Hear ye, good people! Drink the pitchers as our sires
drank!"
That should be "Archarnians", the quote goes for 2 lines (1000 - 1001), and I have used the UTF-8 script to quote him rather than the B-Greek AKOUETE LEWi. KATA TA PATRIA TOUS XOAS PINEIN which lacks the accuracy of accents.

Much of the rest of that discussion is taken up with deciding who the subject of the participle is, and about whether the rejoicer and the weepers are those who include the ones told to do that or others. That is partly derived from the (now defunct) idea thta aspect of the infinitives clearly - in a one-to-one correspondence - defines whether the imperative refers to an action that has to start or which is on-going. The discussions ends with a misunderstanding with one person stating what he thinks is obvious, but to which the other party is actually oblivious;
Jim West in the archives wrote: continue weeping with those who weep-continue rejoicing with those who rejoice
But that subtle point is not caught by Hutson;
Christopher R Hutson in the archives wrote:I grant the possibility that they could have been Christians. But that is a larger interpretational question that grammar will not settle.
The topic is covered in passing in a discussion on Main Verbs by Scott Lawson in 2011.

There is an even older discussion from 1997 of another point of syntax in the same verse; Romans 12:15 -- anarthrous participles, which discusses why the participles don't have articles, but can still be nominal (like nouns). I can't find anything of direct relevance to our present discussion in that thread.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
MAubrey
Posts: 1096
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Imperatival Infinitives (e.g., Rom 12:15)

Post by MAubrey »

cwconrad wrote:I can now look back many years to learning what you're calling "the Old Imperatival Infinitive" in my Sophomore year while reading Homer, and to a class many years later, but still well in my own past, when a physician reading Homer with me encountered this construction and said, "Oh, that's not uncommon even in English -- I've often pointed one of my patients to a chair and said to him, "To sit!" We laughed at that but didn't think further about it. Now, as you've raised the question of what explanation there may be for this usage of the infinitive as an imperative, I realize that it is indeed a serious question.
No, indeed. But we do have analogical usage. If we must use the nomenclature that is standard in so many Greek grammars, we could just as easily talk about the "Imperatival Questions" in English.

Here's a delightful exchange between a mother and a child that I was lucky enough to catch in the wild:
Mom: Do you want to unload the dishwasher?
Son: Not really.
Mom: That was not actually a question.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Imperatival Infinitives (e.g., Rom 12:15)

Post by cwconrad »

MAubrey wrote:
cwconrad wrote:I can now look back many years to learning what you're calling "the Old Imperatival Infinitive" in my Sophomore year while reading Homer, and to a class many years later, but still well in my own past, when a physician reading Homer with me encountered this construction and said, "Oh, that's not uncommon even in English -- I've often pointed one of my patients to a chair and said to him, "To sit!" We laughed at that but didn't think further about it. Now, as you've raised the question of what explanation there may be for this usage of the infinitive as an imperative, I realize that it is indeed a serious question.
No, indeed. But we do have analogical usage. If we must use the nomenclature that is standard in so many Greek grammars, we could just as easily talk about the "Imperatival Questions" in English.

Here's a delightful exchange between a mother and a child that I was lucky enough to catch in the wild:
Mom: Do you want to unload the dishwasher?
Son: Not really.
Mom: That was not actually a question.
There's no question that this usage exists in English; my memory is of my mother asking me, "Wouldn't you like to go to the store and pick up a loaf of bread," to which I replied, as I came regularly to reply to that kind of question, "No, but I'll do it for you." Older Greek uses the 2nd person "potential" optative in just the same fashion: Smyth §1830
The potential optative with ἄν may be used, in a sense akin to that of the imperative, to express a command, exhortation, or request: λέγοις ἂν τὴν δέησιν tell me (you may tell) your request P. Par. 126a, προάγοις ἄν move on P. Phae. 229b. This courteous formula is used even where a harsh command might be expected: χωροῖς ἂν εἴσω σὺν τάχει go within with all speed S. El. 1491.
The question before us at present is: what are the circumstances accounting for this usage of the infinitive in an imperatival sense. It's clear that the potential optative takes the edge off of a demand that one do something that is distasteful or laborious or time-consuming; what are the circumstances in which an infinitive may do the work of an imperative?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”