Preposition + Articulated Infinitive

[Chris Servanti]

Mounce teaches 6 common Preposition + Articulated Verb phrases:

διὰ τὸ βλέπειν αύτόν = Because he sees
πρὸς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτὸν = So that he sees
εἰς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = So that he sees

πρὸ τοῦ βλέπειν αὐτόν = Before he sees
ἐν τῷ βλέπειν αὐτόν = When he sees
μετὰ τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = After he sees

I have a few questions about the real meaning of these phrases since Mounce didn't spend much time on them.

1. Can they have a psuedo direct object like they can have a psuedo subject? (e.g. διὰ τί ἐποίηκας αὐτὸν; δἰα τὸ βλέπείν με τὰ ᾡά)

2. Can the three temporal structure be used as temporal conditions? (e.g. ἐν τῷ βλέπείν με σὲ ἄρχομαι γελᾶν ἀεί)

3. What is the difference between [εἰς τὸ βάλλειν αὐτοὺς τὰ δαιμόνια] and [ἵνα βάλλῃ αὐτοὶ τὰ δαιμόνια]?

4. What is the difference between πρός and εἰς?

5. Is there any significance if you use the aorist or perfect infinitive?

[Stephen Hughes]

Chris, let me give you a little piece of trivia as cross-chat. It is not entirely relevant here for this question, but after some digestion it may help to balance your perception of the language in the long-term.

Despite its prevalence in teaching grammars, βλέπειν, a verb "to see" (and its prefixed prepositional compounds) occurs only (slightly less then) one-fifth as often as ὁρᾶν / ἰδεῖν (and its not so frequent prefixed prepositional compounds).

βλέπειν has nice regular forms that are easily mastered using the analytical / morphological presentation of the language, while the ὁρᾶν / ἰδεῖν / ὄψεσθαι suppletive group is what would naturally have been learnt by language users. Avoidance of the suppletives in this case would be like holding back the teaching of "go (to), went (to), have gone (to) / have been (to)" in English, in favour of "departed (for)", becase it was more regular. The English learnt would be understandable but not idiomatic, and a person who learnt like that would feel like saying, "I wish they would just use the more simpler "depart (for)" / βλέπειν, rather than these difficult and obscure forms, rather than asking, "Why are they using this more specialised verb βλέπειν / depart (for) here?"

[Chris Servanti]

Chris, let me give you a little piece of trivia as cross-chat. It is not entirely relevant here for this question, but after some digestion it may help to balance your perception of the language in the long-term.

Despite its prevalence in teaching grammars, βλέπειν, a verb "to see" (and its prefixed prepositional compounds) occurs only (slightly less then) one-fifth as often as ὁρᾶν / ἰδεῖν (and its not so frequent prefixed prepositional compounds).

βλέπειν has nice regular forms that are easily mastered using the analytical / morphological presentation of the language, while the ὁρᾶν / ἰδεῖν / ὄψεσθαι suppletive group is what would naturally have been learnt by language users. Avoidance of the suppletives in this case would be like holding back the teaching of "go (to), went (to), have gone (to) / have been (to)" in English, in favour of "departed (for)", becase it was more regular. The English learnt would be understandable but not idiomatic, and a person who learnt like that would feel like saying, "I wish they would just use the more simpler "depart (for)" / βλέπειν, rather than these difficult and obscure forms, rather than asking, "Why are they using this more specialised verb βλέπειν / depart (for) here?"

Thanks, that makes since. I didn't even think about the different. βλέψαι would be more like "to look" vs ὄψεσθαι being more like "to see / perceive right"?

[Stephen Hughes]

Thanks, that makes since. I didn't even think about the different. βλέψαι would be more like "to look" vs ὄψεσθαι being more like "to see / perceive right"?

You could write out the principal parts in 2 rows (or two columns) and compare them.

Secondly, look through the dictionary entries of a larger standard dictionary - ask yourself questions like who or what is doing the seeing / looking and under what circumstances, with what emotions / motivations and for what purpose.

Thirdly, think of words and people. Words like those, that occur more than 50 times in the GNT deserve a more thorough learning than a single gloss "look" or "see" can provide for you. Imagine the people you encounter in your daily life, and old man who you see occasionally might be able to be characterised by a single thought, "shuffles his feet as he walks", which might be enough, but one of your family members, friends or colleagues, who you see very often, will need a more 3-D knowledge. Something like that.

[Paul-Nitz]

Mounce teaches 6 common Preposition + Articulated Verb phrases:

διὰ τὸ βλέπειν αύτόν = Because he sees
πρὸς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτὸν = So that he sees
εἰς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = So that he sees

πρὸ τοῦ βλέπειν αὐτόν = Before he sees
ἐν τῷ βλέπειν αὐτόν = When he sees
μετὰ τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = After he sees

I have a few questions about the real meaning of these phrases since Mounce didn't spend much time on them.

1. Can they have a psuedo direct object like they can have a psuedo subject? (e.g. διὰ τί ἐποίηκας αὐτὸν; δἰα τὸ βλέπείν με τὰ ᾡά)

2. Can the three temporal structure be used as temporal conditions? (e.g. ἐν τῷ βλέπείν με σὲ ἄρχομαι γελᾶν ἀεί)

3. What is the difference between [εἰς τὸ βάλλειν αὐτοὺς τὰ δαιμόνια] and [ἵνα βάλλῃ αὐτοὶ τὰ δαιμόνια]?

4. What is the difference between πρός and εἰς?

5. Is there any significance if you use the aorist or perfect infinitive?

Chris, I'm interested in the answers to all your questions.
1 - Yes, I believe so. δια το βλεπειν με τα ωα works. Smyth has no Greek examples, but see Section 1967b "The infinitive can have an object in the genitive, dative, or accusative like the corresponding finite verb."
2 - Definitely, yes.
3 - I'd like to hear the experts weigh in on this. From intuition only, I think εις το... is a simpler thought. I did this for this purpose, goal, intent. The ινα construction seems to me to be a broader result/purpose clause. I did this so that this would happen.
4 - What's the difference between using προς or εις? Not sure. I'd have to look at many examples. Could it be controlled sometimes by the preceding verb?
5 - I think this could only be answered case by case. We'd have to see an example(s) in which there was a real choice.
I hope this post refreshes the questions and we hear better answers.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Mounce teaches 6 common Preposition + Articulated Verb phrases:

διὰ τὸ βλέπειν αύτόν = Because he sees
πρὸς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτὸν = So that he sees
εἰς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = So that he sees

πρὸ τοῦ βλέπειν αὐτόν = Before he sees
ἐν τῷ βλέπειν αὐτόν = When he sees
μετὰ τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = After he sees

I have a few questions about the real meaning of these phrases since Mounce didn't spend much time on them.

1. Can they have a psuedo direct object like they can have a psuedo subject? (e.g. διὰ τί ἐποίηκας αὐτὸν; δἰα τὸ βλέπείν με τὰ ᾡά)

2. Can the three temporal structure be used as temporal conditions? (e.g. ἐν τῷ βλέπείν με σὲ ἄρχομαι γελᾶν ἀεί)

3. What is the difference between [εἰς τὸ βάλλειν αὐτοὺς τὰ δαιμόνια] and [ἵνα βάλλῃ αὐτοὶ τὰ δαιμόνια]?

4. What is the difference between πρός and εἰς?

5. Is there any significance if you use the aorist or perfect infinitive?

First, here is BDAG on the semantic range of βλέπω:

βλέπω fut. βλέψω; 3 pl. fut. βλέψονται Is 29:18; 1 aor. ἔβλεψα (s. βλέμμα; Pind.+ ‘see’: on the use of βλέπω and ὁράω s. Reinhold 97ff. Esp. oft. in Hermas [70 times]).
① to perceive w. the eye, see
ⓐ w. acc. of what is seen: beam, splinter Mt 7:3; Lk 6:41f—Mt 11:4; 13:17; 24:2; Mk 8:23f; Lk 10:23f; Ac 2:33; 9:8f; Rv 1:11f; 5:3f; 22:8. Large buildings Mk 13:2 (cp. Choliamb. in Ps.-Callisth. 1, 46a, 8 lines 4, 8, 19: ὁρᾷς τὰ τείχη ταῦθʼ; … τὰ θεμέλια ταῦτα … ὁρᾷς ἐκείνους τοὺς οἴκους;); a woman Lk 7:44; light (Artem. 5, 20 τὸ φῶς ἔβλεπεν; 5, 77) 8:16, cp. 11:33; Jesus J 1:29; B 5:10; signs Ac 8:6; B 4:14; a vision Ac 12:9; nakedness Rv 16:15; the beast 17:8; smoke 18:9, 18.—Seeing contrasted w. hoping Ro 8:24f. Of angels βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρός (expr. fr. oriental court life = have access constantly, 2 Km 14:24; cp. 4 Km 25:19) Mt 18:10 (s. πρόσωπον 1bα). Pass. πάντων βλεπομένων since everything is seen 1 Cl 28:1. W. acc. and ptc. instead of a dependent clause (SIG1104, 42; UPZ 68, 6 [152 B.C.] βλέπω Μενέδημον κατατρέχοντά με=that M. runs after me; 1 Macc 12:29; Jos., Ant. 20, 219); τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε that the crowd is pressing around you Mk 5:31. τὸν λίθον ἠρμένον that the stone was taken away J 20:1; cp. Mt 15:31; Lk 24:12; J 20:5; 21:9. τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα 5:19; sim. 21:20; Ac 4:14; Hb 2:9. ὑπὲρ ὃ βλέπει με beyond what he sees in me 2 Cor 12:6.
ⓑ abs.: Mt 13:16; Ro 11:10 (Ps 68:24); Rv 9:20. τὰ βλεπόμενα (Ael. Aristid. 46 p. 406 D.; Wsd 13:7; 17:6) what can be seen 2 Cor 4:18. Look on, watch (Jos., Bell. 1, 596. Ant. 3, 95 βλεπόντων αὐτῶν while they looked on, before their eyes) Ac 1:9; 1 Cl 25:4.
ⓒ w. prep. phrase: ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ who sees in secret Mt 6:4, 6; cp. vs. 18 (s. 4 Macc 15:18). In imagery διʼ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι 1 Cor 13:12.
ⓓ βλέπων βλέπω see w. open eyes Mt 13:14 (Is 6:9). βλέπων οὐ βλέπει though he looks he does not see 13:13; Lk 8:10 (the theme is transcultural, cp. Aeschyl., Prom. 447f; Soph. O.T. 413; Ps.-Demosth. 25, 89; Polyb. 12, 24, 6; Lucian, D. Mar. 4, 3; Lucretius 2:14 o pectora caeca! qualibus in tenebris vitae ‘O blind hearts! In what darkness of life …’; s. ἀκούω).
② to have the faculty of sight, be able to see, in contrast to being blind (Trag.; Antiphon 4, 4, 2; X., Mem. 1, 3, 4; Aelian, VH 6, 12; SIG 1168, 78 blind man βλέπων ἀμφοῖν ἐξῆλθε; POxy 39, 9 [52 A.D.] ὀλίγον βλέπων=of weak sight; Ex 4:11; 23:8; 1 Km 3:2; Ps. 113:14; al.) Mt 12:22; 15:31; Lk 7:21; J 9:7, 15, 25; Ac 9:9; Rv 3:18. ὀφθαλμοὶ τοῦ μὴ β. (Ps 68:24, cp. 9:32; Sus 9; B-D-F §400, 2) eyes unable to see Ro 11:8 (Dt 29:3); Hs 6, 2, 1. θεοὶ … δυνάμενοι μήτε βλέψαι μήτε ἀκοῦσαι AcPl Ha 1, 20 (cp. Ps 113:14).—Fig. of grasp of transcendent matters (cp. Diog. L. 6, 53 with reference to Pla.: β. with the eyes of the νοῦς) J 9:39.
③ to take in the sight of someth., look at, observe εἰς w. acc. (Anaxandrides Com. [IV B.C.] 34, 9 K. εἰς τοὺς καλούς; Ael. Aristid. 28, 126 K.=49 p. 531f D.; Aelian, VH 14, 42; Herodian 3, 11, 3; Jdth 9:9; Pr 16:25; Sir 40:29; 4 Macc l5:18) Lk 9:62; J 13:22 (εἰς ἀλλήλους as Proverb. Aesopi 49 P.) Ac 1:11 v.l. (Ps.-Apollod., Epit. 5, 22 and PGM 13, 833 εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν β.); 3:4. W. dat. [ὁ δὲ λέων … .ἔβλ]επεν τῷ Παύλῳ| καὶ ὁ Παῦλο[ς τῷ λέοντι] the lion looked at Paul and Paul [at the lion] AcPl Ha 4, 36. W. acc. look at a woman (cp. Synes., Calvitii encomium 23, 86b ὅστις ἀδίκοις ὀφθαλμοῖς ὁρᾷ τὴν τοῦ γείτονος) Mt 5:28 (ὅστις ἄν ἐμβλέψῃ γυναικί Just., A I, 15, 1). See magic rites D 3:4. βιβλίον look into a book Rv 5:3f.
④ to pay esp. close attention to someth., notice, mark someth.: w. acc. 2 Cor 10:7 (impv.). W. εἴς τι (Polyb. 3, 64, 10 εἰς τ. παρουσίαν) εἰς πρόσωπον β. look at someone’s face = regard someone’s opinion in the sense of being afraid of what someone might think Mt 22:16; Mk 12:14.
⑤ be ready to learn about someth. that is needed or is hazardous, watch, look to, beware of, Mk 13:9; Phil 3:2 (GKilpatrick, PKahle memorial vol. ’68, 146–48: look at, consider); 2J 8. Followed by μή, μήποτε, μήπως and aor. subj. (Pythag., Ep. 4; Epict. 2, 11, 22; 3, 20, 16; PLond III, 964, 9 p. 212 [II/III A.D.] βλέπε μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ οὐδέν; PLips 106, 17 [I B.C.]) beware, look out Mt 24:4; Mk 13:5; Lk 21:8; Ac 13:40; 1 Cor 8:9; 10:12; Gal 5:15; Hb 12:25, or fut. indic. Col 2:8. W. ἀπό τινος (BGU 1079, 2426 [41 A.D.]=CPJ 152, 24ff βλέπε σατὸν [=σαυτὸν] ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων; APF 4, 1908, 568) beware of the leaven of the Pharisees Mk 8:15; of the scribes 12:38.
⑥ to process information by giving thought, direct one’s attention to someth., consider, note (Jos., Bell. 7, 351, Ant. 20, 57).
ⓐ abs. βλέπετε keep your eyes open Mk 13:33.
ⓑ w. acc. (2 Ch 10:16) 1 Cor 1:26; 10:18; on Phil 3:2 s. 5; Col 2:5; 4:17. βλέπων τ. ἐντολήν w. regard to the commandment B 10:11a.
ⓒ w. indir. question foll. Mk 4:24; Lk 8:18; 1 Cor 3:10; Eph 5:15; 1 Cl 56:16; B 10:11b.—W. ἵνα foll. 1 Cor 16:10.
⑦ to develop awareness of someth., perceive, feel
ⓐ by the senses: a strong wind Mt 14:30.
ⓑ of inner awareness discover, find a law Ro 7:23 (cp. PFay 111, 16 ἐὰν βλέπῃς τὴν τιμὴν [price] παντὸς ἀγόρασον). W. acc. and ptc. 2 Cl 20:1; B 1:3. W. ὅτι foll. (BGU 815, 4; EpArist 113) 2 Cor 7:8; Hb 3:19; Js 2:22.
⑧ to be oriented in a particular direction, looking to, in the direction of, facing (rather freq. and w. var. preps.; w. κατά and acc. Ezk 11:1; 40:6 al.; JosAs 5:2 θυρίδα … βλέπουσαν κατὰ ἀνατολάς ‘a window looking out toward the east’) Ac 27:12 (s. λίψ and s. Field, Notes 144).—FHahn, Sehen u. Glauben im J: OCullmann Festschr., ’72, 125–41; FThordarson, SymbOsl 46, ’71, 108–30.—B. 1042. DELG. M-M. TW. Sv.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 178–179). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Secondly, does someone actually say "articulated" infinitive? I think that means it would have joints. The usual phrase is "articular infinitive."

Overall, remember that the infinitive is really a way of turning a verb into a noun. It may be used as a subject or object, including with various prepositions. In the objective use Greek often tries to make it an honest noun by supplying the article, and that would be the neuter article.

1. Sure. I don't know why you would insult the character of the poor nouns used in this way. They are simply the subject or object within the infinitive phrase, nothing pseudo- about it.

2. Of course.

3, 4. Greek, like English has different ways of saying essentially the same thing. It would sound different and maybe feel a little different to a native speaker, but he or she would recognize them as synonymous constructions, context, I think, determining which would be better to use (context including the time of the writing, the audience, the level of formality indicated by the text, and so forth).

5. The aorist infinitive (by far the more frequent) would indicate the action viewed simply, as a whole, the present infinitive would view the action as a process. This is usually communicated in English by context.

[cwconrad]

Mounce teaches 6 common Preposition + Articulated Verb phrases:

διὰ τὸ βλέπειν αύτόν = Because he sees
πρὸς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτὸν = So that he sees
εἰς τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = So that he sees

πρὸ τοῦ βλέπειν αὐτόν = Before he sees
ἐν τῷ βλέπειν αὐτόν = When he sees
μετὰ τὸ βλέπειν αὐτόν = After he sees

I have a few questions about the real meaning of these phrases since Mounce didn't spend much time on them.

1. Can they have a pseudo direct object like they can have a pseudo subject? (e.g. διὰ τί ἐποίηκας αὐτὸν; δἰα τὸ βλέπείν με τὰ ᾡά)

2. Can the three temporal structure be used as temporal conditions? (e.g. ἐν τῷ βλέπείν με σὲ ἄρχομαι γελᾶν ἀεί)

3. What is the difference between [εἰς τὸ βάλλειν αὐτοὺς τὰ δαιμόνια] and [ἵνα βάλλῃ αὐτοὶ τὰ δαιμόνια]?

4. What is the difference between πρός and εἰς?

5. Is there any significance if you use the aorist or perfect infinitive?

I have, as Paul Nitz has suggested, taken renewed interest in this question; as I'm not sure I agree with some of Paul's responses, I'm offering my own. I don't consider myself an expert here so much as a long-time reader of the GNT. I might note at the outset that I think the construction ἐν + articular infinitive is more commonly used as a substitute for an introductory circumstantial subordinate clause.

1. Can they have a pseudo direct object like they can have a pseudo subject? (e.g. διὰ τί ἐποίηκας αὐτὸν; δἰα τὸ βλέπείν με τὰ ᾡά)
I don't think I'd call it "pseudo"; I think however that the phrase with the preposition ἐν and articular infinitive is more likely to be used in an introductory fashion to replace a subordinate clause that in a direct response such as you suggest, while α phrase with the prepositions διὰ, εἰς and πρὸς may follow upon phrasing that it delimits.

2. Can the three temporal structure be used as temporal conditions? (e.g. ἐν τῷ βλέπείν με σὲ ἄρχομαι γελᾶν ἀεί)
Regarding your example, my guess is that it would be understood,but it would be far more natural to use a participle here: βλέπων σε ἀεὶ ἄρχομαι γελᾶν.

3. What is the difference between [εἰς τὸ βάλλειν αὐτοὺς τὰ δαιμόνια] and [ἵνα βάλλῃ αὐτοὶ τὰ δαιμόνια]?
About the same as the difference between six and a half-dozen. In the Koine of the NT we find purposed expressed commonly by ἵνα + subj., by εἰς + articular infinitive, by ὥστε + infinitive, by πρὸς + articular infinitive. Some will insist that there are reasons why one of these would be chosen over alternatives in given situations,but I'm skeptical.

4. What is the difference between πρός and εἰς?
Pretty much the same as between "toward" and "to", which is to say, not much. My own quick review of GNT instances shows that Mt is fonder of using πρὸς with articular infinitive than others. Some people prefer to say "six";others prefer "half a dozen."

5. Is there any significance if you use the aorist or perfect infinitive?[/quote]
The examples you've cited from Mounce all had the present infinitive. My search for πρὸς and εἰς + articular infinitive found aorist infinitives predominantly. I found present infinitives used of verbs that are essentially imperfective.

[Stephen Hughes]

First, here is BDAG on the semantic range of βλέπω:

βλέπω ...

Such a long definition My rule of thumb forth the distinction is that ἰδεῖν is used when the used when the eyes are open and relaxed, while βλέπειν is used when there is a hint of a squint as the brain becomes actively involved in the seeing.

[Chris Servanti]

These have all been very helpful thank y'all!

I think I somewhat discovered the miner difference between "ἐποίησα αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ βλέψαι μὲ σέ" and "ἐποίησα αὐτὸ ἵνα βλέπῶ σέ", but sadly it only makes since if you know spanish. It's hard to articulate the difference, but I think it's similar to when you use (at least for the 1st person sing) para (For + infinitive) vs para que (So that + subjunctive) - "lo hice para verte" vs. "lo hice para que te vea yo".

[cwconrad]

These have all been very helpful thank y'all!

I think I somewhat discovered the miner difference between "ἐποίησα αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ βλέψαι μὲ σέ" and "ἐποίησα αὐτὸ ἵνα βλέπῶ σέ", but sadly it only makes since if you know spanish. It's hard to articulate the difference, but I think it's similar to when you use (at least for the 1st person sing) para (For + infinitive) vs para que (So that + subjunctive) - "lo hice para verte" vs. "lo hice para que te vea yo".

Some caution is called for here, I think. Two of the (many) perils confronting language learners are: 1) relying on etymological associations to discern word-meanings in alien-language texts apart from contextual indications, and 2) assuming that parallel structures govern the usage of different languages -- sometimes they do but often they don't. I think you're asking some good learner's questions.