βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post Reply
Dan Christiansen
Posts: 2
Joined: November 25th, 2014, 10:45 pm

βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by Dan Christiansen »

Wow, it has been a long time since I was last on B-Greek! Hello to old and new friends/acquaintances.

I was reading in Demosthenes, Against Conon (54.6). I translated a passage, and was not bothered a bit by it, and then one of my 4th year students said "what the heck is going on here?" I think the passage is just fine, and the major translations all agree with my sense; however, I can't find syntactical support for what both I and others do to the passage.

In the passage βούλομαι is used to control two separate clauses: the first clause is introduced by πρωτον μεν, the second by μετα ταυτα. Clearly these are parallel constructions. The μετα ταυτα clause adds the expected infinitive to βουλομαι, but the prior πρωτον μεν clause uses the nominative participle παρασχομενος, in concord with βουλομαι .

I can't find any discussion of such a participial construction with βουλομαι, or of a nominative participle being interchangeable with an infinitive. Of course, I am also half expecting Carl Conrad to immediately chime in with an obvious answer, quoting and citing from memory 3 examples from Xenophon, along with the page number of appropriate syntaxes :-)

Daniel
George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by George F Somsel »

βούλομαι τὰς μαρτυρίας παρασχόμενος, μετὰ ταῦθʼ οἷʼ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ τούτου πέπονθʼ ἐπιδεῖξαι,
Demosthenes, Demosthenis.Orationes. Ed. W. Rennie, Speeches (Greek) (Medford, MA: Oxonii.e Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1931).

I would think that the nom part sets forth D's action "I wish when I have furnished witnesses" μετὰ ταῦθʼ then describes the subsequent action. The part is nom because it is descriptive of the action of Demosthenes.
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by Ken M. Penner »

The text:
πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τούτων ὧν εἴρηκα βούλομαι τὰς μαρτυρίας παρασχόμενος, μετὰ ταῦθʼ οἷʼ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ τούτου πέπονθʼ ἐπιδεῖξαι, ἵνʼ εἰδῆθʼ ὅτι ᾧ προσῆκεν τοῖς τὸ πρῶτον ἁμαρτηθεῖσιν ἐπιτιμᾶν, οὗτος αὐτὸς πρότερος πολλῷ δεινότερʼ εἴργασται.
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Dan Christiansen
Posts: 2
Joined: November 25th, 2014, 10:45 pm

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by Dan Christiansen »

I would agree with George that the Nom participle sets forth prior conditions to the fulfilling of the finite verb, except that the phrase is introduced by πρῶτον μεν. This is precisely the difficulty, since the participial phrase is clearly the first "object" of βούλομαι, rather than the attendant circumstance to the verb's "objects." D is not saying "After providing witnesses, I wish to do X and Y"; rather, he says "I wish first to provide witnesses for the things I have said, after which to show what things I have been subjected to by this man, so you might know …." The Nom participle is functioning in its πρῶτον μεν clause just as the ἐπιδεῖξαι functions in its μέτα ταῦτα clause.

To find an infinitive or a ἵνα + subj (even a bare genitive substantive) as βούλομαι's "object" is fine, but I don't see how to understand the grammar on this one. I've been teaching this for 20+ years, studying it for 30+, but this construction really bothers me. Perhaps I need to just take it ad sensum and not worry about the grammar? I'm not certain I want to do that with Demosthenes.
Ken M. Penner
Posts: 881
Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
Contact:

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by Ken M. Penner »

Is Smyth §2123relevant here?
Some verbs admit either the supplementary participle or the infinitive, sometimes with only a slight difference in meaning.
βούλομαι is not one of the verbs listed, but judging from this case I think it should be.
Or am I misunderstanding the question?
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Co-Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by Jonathan Robie »

For what it's worth, I just tried a query for participles in the objects of βούλομαι in the Greek New Testament and did not find any. If I look at clauses where the verb is βούλομαι, you find infinitives in adverbial clauses that they contain, but not in the objects.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
bramwellatkins
Posts: 1
Joined: December 2nd, 2023, 4:38 pm

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by bramwellatkins »

There is a similar construction in Thucydides 1.20.2: βουλόμενοι δὲ πρὶν ξυλληφθῆναι δράσαντές τι καὶ κινδυνεῦσαι. Here, βουλόμενοι takes both δράσαντές and κινδυνεῦσαι. Hence: "wishing . . . to do something and to risk it" -- unless I am mistaken.
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: βούλομαι followed by nominative participle?

Post by Jason Hare »

bramwellatkins wrote: December 2nd, 2023, 4:42 pm There is a similar construction in Thucydides 1.20.2: βουλόμενοι δὲ πρὶν ξυλληφθῆναι δράσαντές τι καὶ κινδυνεῦσαι. Here, βουλόμενοι takes both δράσαντές and κινδυνεῦσαι. Hence: "wishing . . . to do something and to risk it" -- unless I am mistaken.
Thucydides, History of the Pelopponesian War, 1.20.2:
Ἀθηναίων γοῦν τὸ πλῆθος Ἵππαρχον οἴονται ὑφ’ Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος τύραννον ὄντα ἀποθανεῖν, καὶ οὐκ ἴσασιν ὅτι Ἱππίας μὲν πρεσβύτατος ὢν ἦρχε τῶν Πεισιστράτου υἱέων, Ἵππαρχος δὲ καὶ Θεσσαλὸς ἀδελφοὶ ἦσαν αὐτοῦ, ὑποτοπήσαντες δέ τι ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ παραχρῆμα Ἁρμόδιος καὶ Ἀριστογείτων ἐκ τῶν ξυνειδότων σφίσιν Ἱππίᾳ μεμηνῦσθαι τοῦ μὲν ἀπέσχοντο ὡς προειδότος, βουλόμενοι δὲ πρὶν ξυλληφθῆναι δράσαντές τι καὶ κινδυνεῦσαι, τῷ Ἱππάρχῳ περιτυχόντες περὶ τὸ Λεωκόρειον καλούμενον τὴν Παναθηναϊκὴν πομπὴν διακοσμοῦντι ἀπέκτειναν.
Translation by Richard Crawley:
The general Athenian public fancy that Hipparchus was tyrant when he fell by the hands of Harmodius and Aristogiton; not knowing that Hippias, the eldest of the sons of Pisistratus, was really supreme, and that Hipparchus and Thessalus were his brothers; and that Harmodius and Aristogiton suspecting, on the very day, nay at the very moment fixed on for the deed, that information had been conveyed to Hippias by their accomplices, concluded that he had been warned, and did not attack him, yet, not liking to be apprehended and risk their lives for nothing, fell upon Hipparchus near the temple of the daughters of Leos, and slew him as he was arranging the Panathenaic procession.
I don’t think that the participle should be taken as complementary to the βούλομαι here.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”