Steven R. Lo Vullo
doulos at chorus.net
Sat Dec 9 19:40:07 EST 2000
On 12/9/00 4:01 PM, Carlton Winbery wrote:
> Steven R. Lo Vullo wrote;
>> I have a technical question regarding articular infinitives in prepositional
>> phrases. I have Rom 3.4 specifically in mind, which has EN TWi KRINESQAI SE
>> modifying NIKHSEIS. The question is this: Does EN technically govern TWi
>> KRINESQAI SE, KRINESQAI SE, or only KRINESQAI? Any help would be
> KAQAPER GEGRAPTAI: hOPWS AN DIKAIWQHS EN TOIS LOGOIS SOU KAI NIKHSEIS
> (v.l.-SHS) EN TWi KRINESQAI SE.
> An infinitive with the article is considered to be a neuter sing. noun. In
> this case the dative (locative) is telling time, "when you are judged." SE
> serves as the accusative of reference (subject of the infinitive). EN, of
> course, goes with the article + infinitive construction in the dative.
> There are a number of instances when the future indicative is substituted
> for the aorist subjunctive (as in the case of NIKHSEIS). Some scribes
> thought it should be the subjunctive and changed it (even Vaticanus). The
> overall sentence indicates purpose by combining hOPWS with the subjunctive
> and future.
I understand the above. What I was really driving at had more to do with how
to *describe* the relationship of EN to the following words. I'm working on
some syntax charts that include a short description of the function of each
word in the text. So I want to be able to fill in the blank in the following
sentence: EN governs ______. Would I fill in the blank with TWi KRINESQAI
SE, KRINESQAI SE, or just KRINESQAI? Is TWi, for example, considered as
part of the object of EN or just as a modifier of KRINESQAI?
More information about the B-Greek