From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 05 2001 - 07:15:59 EST
At 10:47 PM -0600 1/4/01, Steven R. Lo Vullo wrote:
>On 1/4/01 8:51 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:
>
>> KAI hHGOUMAI SKUBALA hINA CRISTON KERDHSW
>
>> TOU GNWNAI AUTON
>> KAI THN DUNAMIN THS ANASTASEWS AUTOU
>> KAI [THN] KOINWNIAN [TWN] PAQHMATWN AUTOU
>> SUMMORFIZOMENOS TWi QANATWi AUTOU
>> EI PWS KATANTHSW EIS THN EXANASTASIN THN EK NEKRWN
>
>> How do these accusatives (THN DUNAMIN, [THN] KOINWNIAN) function
>> in relation to TOU GNWNAI? In other words, what exactly does it mean when
>> the grammars say that the accusative is the "subject" (they always put
>>subject
>> in quotes) of the Infinitive? These accusatives seem more like objects of
>> 'know' than subjects (at least in English).
>
>They indeed are objects of GNWNAI. In the type of infinitival clause to
>which you refer, IF the infinitive has a "subject" (semantically speaking)
>it will be what some call the "accusative of respect." But just because
>there is an accusative noun associated with the infinitive, this does not
>mean it will automatically be the "subject." It may very well be the object
>or even an adverbial accusative. The context will tell, although in certain
>cases it is hard to decide. See Wallace, pp. 192ff. for further information.
I learned to call an accusative subject of an infinitive quite simply
"accusative subject of an infinitive" and have always used the term
"accusative of respect" for an accusative used "epexegetically" as in one
of my favorite lines of Sophocles--what Teiresias tells Oedipus on
departing from him:
TUFLOS TA T'WTA TON TE NOUN TA T' OMMAT' EI
which I used to like to translate idiotically as:
"You are blind in the eyes, ears, nose and throat"
although more precisely it is
"You are blind in [your] ears and in [your] mind and in [your] eyes as well."
I haven't checked out the Wallace on this particularly, but although I
think he's generally right on most things, I really don't like his
idiosyncratic use of terminology or tendency to invent new grammatical
categories.
>> Syntactically, does SUMMORFIZOMENOS modify KERDHSW (since it is a finite
>> verb) in verse 8?
>
>Personally, I think it makes the best sense to take SUMMORFIZOMENOS as
>modifying GNWNAI. It seems to me to have instrumental force ("that I may
>know him ... by becoming conformed..."). The translators of NRSV apparently
>took it this way.
I would agree with this understanding, that it clarifies adverbially GNWNAI
AUTON, but being clear also that it is in agreement with the subject of
KERDHSW, which is, of course, carried forward implicitly into the
subordinate clauses that follow--it's just that KERDHSW is the last verb
that explicitly stated that first-person subject. This is an intelligible
sentence, but it is a very complex one, and I would associate it more
directly with GNWNAI, which here seems to be used in a very mystical sense
of sharing the experience of dying and rising with Christ.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:45 EDT