Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 709
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Louis L Sorenson » June 9th, 2011, 12:11 am

Or could ἵνα [να] be implied?

τί θέλετέ με [ἵνα] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Modern is: Tι θέλετε να σας κάνω
0 x



Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1631
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Barry Hofstetter » June 9th, 2011, 12:51 am

Louis L Sorenson wrote:Or could ἵνα [να] be implied?

τί θέλετέ με [ἵνα] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Modern is: Tι θέλετε να σας κάνω
I meant to address this point earlier. It's not unusual for ἴνα to be omitted, see Matt 20:32, Τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν...
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by cwconrad » June 9th, 2011, 6:59 am

No, I think the intent is rather, "You want - me - I should do what thing for you?"
That is, it's the equivalent of τί θέλετέ με ποιῆσαι ὑμῖν;
The subjunctive clause is indeed a ἵνα clause with the ἵνα omitted as it often is in what I previously referred to as "substantive result clauses" -- Smyth §2218, also BDF §364, especially with regard to omission of the introductory particle. I think
this is a conflation of the infinitive and the subjunctive constructions. As I said earlier, I think this is an instance in Marcan Greek of a colloquial usage displaying a transitional structure between the infinitive and the subjunctive clause as object of a verb like θέλω.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

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

Martin Culy
Posts: 1
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 10:22 am

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Martin Culy » June 9th, 2011, 11:29 am

I agree that this may well simply be an example of a language user not following the “rules,” but let me suggest an alternative analysis. The verb θέλω is often followed by an infinitive construction. When we see the accusative με, it’s natural to think that the writer intended to use such a construction, and we thus expect ποιῆσαι. Given the context of verse 35, however, I wonder if ποιῆσαι has been left out by ellipsis, with the με making it clear to the reader that it is implied. The interrogative clause would then end after με (ποιῆσαι), and ποιήσω would be read as future indicative rather than aorist subjunctive: τί θέλετέ με (ποιῆσαι); ποιήσω ὑμῖν. Thus, “What do you want me to do? I will do (it) for you.” This reading has the benefit of both fitting the context and providing a plausible explanation of the syntax. On the other hand, I would want to look for other examples of this type of ellipsis. Am I missing something?
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2835
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Stephen Carlson » June 9th, 2011, 2:47 pm

Martin Culy wrote:I agree that this may well simply be an example of a language user not following the “rules,” but let me suggest an alternative analysis. The verb θέλω is often followed by an infinitive construction. When we see the accusative με, it’s natural to think that the writer intended to use such a construction, and we thus expect ποιῆσαι. Given the context of verse 35, however, I wonder if ποιῆσαι has been left out by ellipsis, with the με making it clear to the reader that it is implied. The interrogative clause would then end after με (ποιῆσαι), and ποιήσω would be read as future indicative rather than aorist subjunctive: τί θέλετέ με (ποιῆσαι); ποιήσω ὑμῖν. Thus, “What do you want me to do? I will do (it) for you.” This reading has the benefit of both fitting the context and providing a plausible explanation of the syntax. On the other hand, I would want to look for other examples of this type of ellipsis. Am I missing something?
This is almost identical to the proposal of Higgins, Exp Times 52 (1941): 317-318, which I cited in the original post, except that he goes further and conjectures that the text explicitly included the ποιῆσαι. The advantage of your proposed ellipsis, of course, is that it doesn't need the conjectural emendation.

I agree that your proposal both fits the context and provides a plausible explanation of the syntax. I would feel even better about it, however, if we had some good other examples of such an ellipsis.

Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Vasile Stancu
Posts: 36
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 3:13 am
Location: Timisoara, Romania
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Vasile Stancu » June 9th, 2011, 3:14 pm

sccarlson wrote:
Vasile Stancu wrote:How about με just emphasizing something?
Attested examples of the construction ... would be very helpful.
Stephen
The first example I have in mind is the vey one under discussion. And it is all the more a precious construction as it is scarcely attested by other writings. It is well attested, I would dare say, on the other hand, by the multitude of genuine Koine Greek speakers of those times, who did not reject is as 'bad Greek'. I am not in the position to evaluate the geographical extent and the quality of the people where this reading circulated, but I would be not surprised to learn that its endorsement was quite considerable.
0 x

MAubrey
Posts: 991
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by MAubrey » June 9th, 2011, 3:50 pm

Vasile Stancu wrote:
sccarlson wrote:
Vasile Stancu wrote:How about με just emphasizing something?
Attested examples of the construction ... would be very helpful.
Stephen
The first example I have in mind is the vey one under discussion. And it is all the more a precious construction as it is scarcely attested by other writings. It is well attested, I would dare say, on the other hand, by the multitude of genuine Koine Greek speakers of those times, who did not reject is as 'bad Greek'. I am not in the position to evaluate the geographical extent and the quality of the people where this reading circulated, but I would be not surprised to learn that its endorsement was quite considerable.
Vasile, με is a clitic and thus cannot take an accent. I'm at a loss as to how you can emphasize something that isn't, well, emphasized. If Mark had used, say, ἐμέ, that would potentially be emphasized, but I cannot see it being the case with merely the clitic.

As for whether or not it was accepted by Koine Greek speakers of the time, I'm not sure how we can say that considering that we're not even sure that it was the original text.
0 x
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
Koine-Greek.com

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Mark Lightman » June 9th, 2011, 6:31 pm

There's a good deal of talk (I've done my share) about Mark's "oddball" Greek; nobody talks about solecisms, so far as I know,
but there are several passages that are similar to this one in that they are perfectly intelligible Greek -- there's really no missing or added meaning, I think we'd agree -- but they don't conform to recognized syntactic patterns of the era in which we encounter them.
Hi, Carl,

Very like a pidgin. :mrgreen:
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2110
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by cwconrad » June 10th, 2011, 7:42 am

Mark Lightman wrote:
There's a good deal of talk (I've done my share) about Mark's "oddball" Greek; nobody talks about solecisms, so far as I know,
but there are several passages that are similar to this one in that they are perfectly intelligible Greek -- there's really no missing or added meaning, I think we'd agree -- but they don't conform to recognized syntactic patterns of the era in which we encounter them.
Hi, Carl,

Very like a pidgin. :mrgreen:
I know that you intended this as amusing -- and as a not so sly dig at my objection to posts in anglicizing Greek, but the question of Mark's Greek is one that does get discussed occasionally. I've said my say on that matter several years ago in the Introduction to my on-line "Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark" (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/Mark/: I think that the evangelist probably retained the sometimes awkward Greek phrasing of his source material but wrote excellent Greek in his own linking and redactional formulations. In earlier years I used to think that Mark's Greek was really "oddball" but I found very plausible the accounting for Mark's Greek offered by our esteemed former Chair of B-Greek, Edward Hobbs.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

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

Vasile Stancu
Posts: 36
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 3:13 am
Location: Timisoara, Romania
Contact:

Re: Mark 10:36 Τί θέλετέ [με] ποιήσω ὑμῖν;

Post by Vasile Stancu » June 12th, 2011, 10:24 am

MAubrey wrote: ... whether or not it was accepted by Koine Greek speakers of the time...
Mike, I believe emphasizing things is not limited to employing accent/accented words. Don't you agree that a redundant με could be assumed as an emphasizing instrument?
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”