Rom 1:8 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου
Rom 11:14 εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα
1 Cor 4:16-17 παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε. διὰ τοῦτο ἔπεμψα ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον, ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν...ὃς ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσει τὰς ὁδούς μου
1 Cor 8:13 εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω.
1 Cor 9:2 ἡ γὰρ σφραγίς μου τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ.
1 Cot 9:27 ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα καὶ δουλαγωγῶ, μή πως ἄλλοις κηρύξας αὐτὸς ἀδόκιμος γένωμαι.
2 Cor 2:13 οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου
2 Cor 12:9 Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου...καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου
Col 2:1 ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί
2 Tim 1:12 πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι
2 Tim 3:10 Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθησάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ
Thanks Iver, some more for a fast read
Rom 1.8 has the mou in a default order, identifies noun "my God"
Rom 11.14 strengthens verb by having it attract MOY (it makes it feel like a 'middle')
1Cor 4: MOY follows focal MIMHTAI, ESTIN MOY are contextualizing (non-focal) leaving the 'beloved child' as descriptive rather than identified.
1Cor 8 both MOY default with noun, though second noun is fronted for focus
1Cor9.2 MOY is default with noun. MOre important, ESTE follows YMEIS as focal
1Cor 9.27 MOY strengthens verb and gives 'middle' quality to clause rather than simply identify noun
2Cor 2.13 deafult with noun (identifies noun)
2Cor12.9 SOI strengthens verb, both MOY are default with both nouns
Col 2.1 default
2Tim 1.12 Estin follows focal complement. MOY default with noun.
2Tim3.10 MOY attracted to verb and strengthens it.
Thank, you, Randall. I like to discuss actual data. As we are both aware, a linguistic analysis is not necessarily a matter of true or false, but which may have more explanatory power and which best accounts for all the data in a systematic way. There is quite a bit of leeway for different analyses.
I agree that the default order for mou like other possessive pronouns is after the head noun in the noun phrase. The Greek mou has a double function as far as I can see. It may be a personal pronoun and function as direct object for verbs that govern the genitive case. But it also functions as a possessive pronoun and when it does so, it is a constitutent of a noun phrase. I won't comment on the default order examples, since we are in agreement there.
I have a hard time attaching a clear meaning to a possessive pronoun strengthening the verb. In both Rom 11:14 and 1 Cor 9:27 there is an object in the accusative for the verb. I consider μου τὴν σάρκα to be an NP object for παραζηλώσω and μου τὸ σῶμα to be an NP object for ὑπωπιάζω. When you say that mou strengthens the verb are you suggesting that mou is not part of the NP? I don't "feel" these verbs as more middle apart from the fact that the object NP includes a 1. ps. pronoun. But that should be true regardless of the position of the pronoun. In 2 Tim 3:10 we have a verb that governs a dative object, and the text has no less than 9 such objects. Maybe the mou here is fronted in order to more easily be seen as implied for all the dative items. Or maybe there is a slight focus on MY teachings, etc. as opposed to other teachers. Timothy was closely following Paul and took part in all the activities mentioned. I don't see what it might mean that it strengthens the verb, nor do I see how that could explain the fronting.
In 2 Cor 12:9 you also say that the dative SOI strengthens the verb, but here we have a different syntax. The verb ἀρκέω has a dative "indirect object" or beneficiary role, so the SOI is in a direct and close relationship with the verb as a personal pronoun.
So, my problem is how to understand this strengthening, what it means and what it is based on.
My "feeling" is that the fronted MOU functions as fronting normally does, putting some relative emphasis on it. In English, I suggest a similar emphasis can be expressed my adding "own". Rom 11:14: If somehow I could provoke my own flesh/people to jealousy. (After having written this, I noticed that both NIV and GNB add "own") 1 Cor 9:27 I subdue my own body and make it my slave so that I who have proclaimed to others should not myself become disqualified/fail the test. 1 Cor 4:17 Timothy who is indeed my own beloved and trusted son in the Lord. (GNB: who is my own dear and faithful son). The same seems to apply to a fronted AUTOU. I could give examples, but let me stop here.
It may be worthwhile to quote Robertson a bit here:
We may be sure that when the long form ἐμοῦ occurs some slight emphasis is meant, as in ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ (Rom. 1:12). But we cannot feel sure that all emphasis is absent when the short form is used. Thus οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (Mt. 16:18), πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου (11:27). With prepositions (the “true” ones) the long form is used as in ancient Greek except with πρός, which uniformly has με even where emphasis is obvious
Robertson, A. T. (1919). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (681–682). Logos Bible Software.
The short (enclitic) form can show emphasis according to him, and I agree. I am not sure that the long forms necessarily show emphasis, because in the case of almost all prepositions, there is no choice.