Re: imperative moods?

From: Harold R. Holmyard III (hholmyard@ont.com)
Date: Tue Apr 25 2000 - 09:15:48 EDT


<x-charset iso-8859-1>Dear Carlton,
    There seems to be a slight problem with the Liddell, Scott, Jones
entry for adverbial hINA, and with your copy of it. I will show you a bit
of data that you omit. You have:

  1. in that place, there, once in Hom.,hi. gar sphin
> epephradon Ígerethesthai Hom. Il. 10.127 (acc.to
> Eust.).
> 2. elsewh. relat., in which place, where, au=Eust.
> 2.558, Hom. Od. 9.136, Hdt. 2.133,au=Hdt. 9.27,au=Hdt.
> 9.54=lr, Pind. O. 1.95, Bacchyl. 10.79, Aesch. PB 21,
> al., Soph. El. 22,au=Soph. El. 855, Aristoph. Frogs
> 1231, etc.: rarely in Att. Prose, Lys. 13.72 (v. infr.),
> Plat. Apol. 17c, ti=Plat. Phileb. 61b; hi. hÍ NikÍ (sc.
> estin) IG22.1407.13: rare in later Greek, Arr.An.1.3.2, Luc.Cont.22,
> ti=Luc. Ind.3: with particles, hi. te Hom. Il. 20.478; hi. per
>au=Hom. Il.
> 24.382, Hom. Od. 13.364, Lys. l.c.; hin' an c. subj. wherever, Soph.
>OC 405, Eur. Ion 315; as indirect interrog., Hdt. 1.179, au=Hdt. 2.150,
>Eur. Hec. 1008. Hom., like other Advs. of Place, c. gen., hi. tÍs chÙrÍs
>Hdt. 1.98; emathe hi. Ín kakou in what a calamity, IDEM=Hdt. 1.213; oud'
>horan hin' e kakou Soph. OT 367; hin' hestamen chreias IBID=au=Soph. OT
>1442; hin' Ímen atÍs IDEM=Soph. El. 936; horais hin' esmen autou peri tÍs
>aporias Plat. Soph. 243b.

You should have on the fifth line from the bottom:
>Eur. Hec. 1008. b. after Hom., like other Advs. of place, c. gen., etc.
     Perhaps you left out the b because LSJ left out the a.

In LSJ there is A and B. Under A there is I and II. Under I there is 1 and
2. Under 2 there is b and c but no a. The information for a is there but
the letter is missing. In your copy 2 is there, but not the missing a of
LSJ or the b. These may be small mistakes, since the information is there
both in LSJ and in your copy. You did not transcribe the material of c. But
the material that you covered tells us the following. Under A. I. 1, we
have a usage that occurs only once, in Homer. Under A. I. 2. a, we have a
usage which is rare in later Greek. Under A. I. 2. b we have hINA, as other
Advs. of place, with the genitive.

But 1 Cor 4:6 and Gal 4:17 are not Homeric, perhaps are not instances of
what is rare in later Greek, and do not take hINA with the genitive. So
should we not be wary of applying an adverbial meaning to them, especially
when the LSJ B sense of a final conjunction seems suitable?

                                 Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard
>>
>>There is another case of hINA with the present indicative (FUSIOUSQE) by
>>Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6 (interestingly enough, another omicron contract),
>>which seems to be a clear example of a purpose clause (cf. also GINWSKOMEN
>>in Aleph A B* L P 049. 33. 81. 614 al of 1 John 5:20). Paul's purpose in
>>saying what he did about himself and Apollos was "so that none of you will
>>be puffed up in favor of one against another" (NRSV). It seems to be more
>>coherent in the context of Gal 4:17 to take hINA ZHLOUTE in the same way,
>>i.e., as a purpose clause. The sense would be that the teachers troubling
>>the Galatians were zealous to win them over, but with the improper purpose
>>(cf. v. 18) of having the Galatians be zealous for them, i.e., follow them
>>and submit to their teachings. This is consistent with other statements of
>>Paul in the letter as to the motivating factors underlying the false
>>teachers' efforts. He ascribes the motive of selfish pride to their work
>>when he says of them in 6:12, "Those who want to make a good impression
>>outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised" (NIV) and in 6:13
>>where he claims "they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast
>>about your flesh" (NRSV). So, according to Paul, the purpose of the false
>>teachers was not to build up the Galatians spiritually, but to build up
>>their own reputations by winning over the Galatians as trophies to their
>>teaching efforts and doctrine. Their purpose was to gain a following (hINA
>>AUTOUS ZHLOUTE) with the purpose of building up their own prestige.
>>
>The old Grimm-Wilke and the (old) revision by Thayer (unabridged) applies
>this to both 1 Cor. 4:6 and Gal. 4:17. I don't think that the omicron
>contract makes any difference. You can also find this situation in variant
>readings at Jn 5:20 (good evidence for), Gal 6:12; Tit. 2:4; Rev. 12:6;
>13:17. Zerwick/Smith and E.D. Burton both see these as solecisms that
>should be treated as subjunctives. However, I do not think that is
>necessary since there is a history of the adverbial use back to Homer.

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

</x-charset>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:06 EDT