cwconrad wrote:I think this is a good and helpful observation: ἐλθεῖν pretty clearly has the function of an auxiliary verb here. I wonder whether the usage of verbs of motion as auxiliaries with infinitive (Latin uses a future participle of purpose with a verb of motion) has been studied. Here ἐλθεῖν has almost the sense of "intend."
I think there are four difficulties with recognising ἐλθεῖν as an auxiliary. The first is that the older meaning is definitely motion. The secon is that is perhaps more a habit of speech, an idiom rather than a rule. The third is that it didn't continue in the Modern period. The fourth is that we are foreign language learners and as such we tend to be rigid and literal.
Take the English meaning of "want" as sort of a parallel. If somebody had learnt an older form of English and was used to seeing "want" in very physical terms - "have dire need of". If they were given a later text where "want" meant "have a desire for", there could be some misunderstanding. A phrase like, "I want something to eat.", might get a reaction like, "The local Presbyterian Church has a soup kitchen from 6pm till late." At what point did the meaning change from have the physical lack of something to have the desire to fill the physical lack, to just have the desire for something. So too the ἐλθεῖν. There is a range between the physical movement and the ability to get something done when you are present and the intention to do something.
Because it may not be more than a habit of speech, it might be difficult to assign a meaning to ἐλθεῖν (when used like this) that can be used to render it into English. As such, it sort of belongs in the grammar rather than the lexicon, but the grammar is for rules and patterns, but this is sort of a development of the meaning, so it belongs in the lexicon.
When we see θέλειν and it seems that the future reference of the "desire" is stressed and has all but ousted the actual meaning of "desire", we are more likely to accept that than we are to accept the grammatical nature of ἐλθεῖν, because at some point θέλειν did take on a purely grammatical role distinct from its lexical role. With even a modest knowledge of NT Hreek, it is possible to recognise familiar elements in Modern Greek. Because that feature of Greek has a linear development it is easy to recognise and verify. This abstraction of ἐλθεῖν isn't recognised as a grammatical feature in the later period, so presumably is was a feature of the language that sprung up briefly, and was then replaced by something else. It may be a small part of the adjustment of the verbal system in compensation for the change that saw the loss of the optative and the increase in the use of prepositions rather than just the cases. The subsequent loss of the subjunctive as a form, in favour of it becoming a syntactic construction might be what eclipsed this construction with ἐλθεῖν after just a relatively short time.
As with many foreign language learners who learn by translating (word-by-word), there is often an over literalness in how the target language is understood. Since taking ἐλθεῖν as an auxiliary verb (when followed by an infinitive of pupose, a finite verb separated by καί or ἵνα with the subjunctive) requires computational thinking rather than memory recall to process, it doesn't lend lend itself to easy interpretation.
Anyway, back to the question, is there a logical and simple explanation for why the negation is written before the ἦλθον rather than before the καταλῦσαι?