From: Perry L. Stepp (plstepp@flash.net)
Date: Thu Apr 23 1998 - 11:24:12 EDT
Hello, all.
> From: D. Anthony Storm [mailto:dstorm@2xtreme.net]
> There would appear to be an articular infinitive in Phlp. 3.10:
>
> TOU GNWNAI AUTON KAI THN DUNAMIN.....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> My question is... why is the article in the genitive? I cannot find any
> previous finite verb that requires the genitive. I checked in Smythe
> briefly, but I am still puzzled.
When we studied the prison epistles (Ph.D. seminar at Baylor a few years
ago), I remember noticing that most if not all of the genitive articular
infinitives I could find expressed purpose. I wonder if this is consistent
enough to be considered a general rule--to wit, "when you see a genitive
articular infinitive, think purpose first"? Dr. Winbery, are you listening?
Dr. Conrad?
I'm looking at Brooks and Winbery, p. 134ff. They list TOU + infinitive
under both purpose and result. But I think both the listed examples used
for TOU + infinitive expressing result could also express purpose. Are
there better examples, where TOU + infinitive clearly *doesn't* express
purpose?
PLStepp
*****************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
#1 Cowboy Fan
Keeper of the Top-10, news://alt.fan.letterman
I know Hell is real--I've dealt with Comp USA's
customer service department!Ê So repent!Ê
(Or at least go to Best Buy.)
Seeing upon how slippery a place
Fortune for mortals and misfortune stand.
Therefore the man that lives at ease should look
For rocks ahead, and when he prospers most
Watch lest he suffer shipwreck unawares.
--Sophocles, *Philoctetes* 502-06
*****************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:35 EDT