Philippians 1:27

Polycarp66 at Polycarp66 at
Sat Mar 23 19:20:04 EST 2002

In a message dated 3/23/2002 5:44:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
slovullo at writes:

> EITE ... EITE are coordinating correlative conjunctions, forming a "whether
> ... or" construction. It seems most natural that the participle APWN is
> introduced by the second EITE, not the verb AKOUW, since the first EITE
> clause features two participles (ELQWN and IDWN). APWN is contrasted with
> ELQWN and IDWN. In light of this, my first impulse is to ask, "In what way
> does AKOUW go with APWN?" If we take seriously the symmetry of the EITE
> clauses, and conclude that the second introduces APWN, then how could we
> explain a subordinate participle construed with a finite verb to which it is
> NOT subordinate (APWN with AKOUW)? Seems like a stretch to me. It is far
> more natural to understand all three participles a subordinate to AKOUW. And
> how common is it for a purpose clause introduced by hINA to have no explicit
> verb? I would think it is not very common at all.

I think that the emphasis upon the structure EITE . . . EITE is correct.  
What we have here is 


It may seem a bit strange to have two participles paralleling a participle 
and a finite verb.  AKOUW is not the expected verb to complete the purpose 
clause.  The purpose clause continues on to include the result introduced by 
hOTI with the purposed result that STHKETE "you may stand . . ."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the B-Greek mailing list