Acts 22:17

[] Acts 22,17;18A Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 8 23:31:21 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,6 [] Acts 22,17;18A EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAIPROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME ENEKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAIEXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive Absolutebecause its subject is different from that of the mainclause. What is the subject of the main clause here?=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Acts 22,6[] Acts 22,17;18A

[] Acts 22,17;18A Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 8 23:31:21 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,6 [] Acts 22,17;18A EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAIPROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME ENEKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAIEXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive Absolutebecause its subject is different from that of the mainclause. What is the subject of the main clause here?=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Acts 22,6[] Acts 22,17;18A

[] Acts 22,17;18A Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 9 06:42:42 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18A At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:>EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI>PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI>EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive Absolute>because its subject is different from that of the main>clause. What is the subject of the main clause here?The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO MOI) is the compoundinfinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive clause–GENESQAI ME …KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a trance and to see …” which instandard English would become “that I came to be in a trance and saw …”Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive absolute into anotherparticiple in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHMKAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”Andit happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in thetemple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18A

[] Acts 22,17;18A Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 9 06:42:42 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18A At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:>EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI>PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI>EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive Absolute>because its subject is different from that of the main>clause. What is the subject of the main clause here?The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO MOI) is the compoundinfinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive clause–GENESQAI ME …KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a trance and to see …” which instandard English would become “that I came to be in a trance and saw …”Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive absolute into anotherparticiple in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHMKAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”Andit happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in thetemple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18A

[] Acts 22,17;18A D Jongkind dirk.jongkind at ntlworld.com
Fri Apr 9 07:10:19 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18A > >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive absolute into another> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI hUPOYTREYANTI EISIEEROUSALHM> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN …“”And> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”I am just wondering if Attic Greek would use the construction of EGENETOwith the dative at all, especially in situations as these when the story iscarried forwards “And it happened …”[This is a genuine question, as I really don’t know].Regards,Dirk Jongkind

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18A

[] Acts 22,17;18A Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 9 07:43:58 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18 follow up At 12:10 PM +0100 4/9/04, D Jongkind wrote:>> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI>> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI>> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive absolute into another>> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI hUPOYTREYANTI EIS>IEEROUSALHM>> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN …>“”And>> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the>> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”> >I am just wondering if Attic Greek would use the construction of EGENETO>with the dative at all, especially in situations as these when the story is>carried forwards “And it happened …”>[This is a genuine question, as I really don’t know].Actually I think you’re right; although Ciceronian Latin prose would usethe dative participles as I suggested (whenever I see something like this,I recall the opening of Cicero’s De Oratore: Cogitanti mihi saepe numero etmemoria vetera repetenti perbeati fuisse, Quinte frater, illi viderisolent), I think that the construction in the present passage owes more toLXX patterns derived from Hebrew narrative idiom than to older standardGreek. This really is a Hebraism.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 9 07:55:00 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18 follow up I am not understanding the idea here then of the”subject” of the main clause. It appears that thesubject in both clauses is “I” (Paul). Could someoneexplain how there are two different subjects in theseclauses?— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>wrote:> At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive> Absolute> >because its subject is different from that of the> main> >clause. What is the subject of the main clause> here?> > The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO> MOI) is the compound> infinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive> clause–GENESQAI ME …> KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a trance> and to see …” which in> standard English would become “that I came to be in> a trance and saw …”> > Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive> absolute into another> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI> hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHM> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”And> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem> and was praying in the> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”>> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up

[] Acts 22,17;18A D Jongkind dirk.jongkind at ntlworld.com
Fri Apr 9 07:10:19 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18A > >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive absolute into another> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI hUPOYTREYANTI EISIEEROUSALHM> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN …“”And> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”I am just wondering if Attic Greek would use the construction of EGENETOwith the dative at all, especially in situations as these when the story iscarried forwards “And it happened …”[This is a genuine question, as I really don’t know].Regards,Dirk Jongkind

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18A

[] Acts 22,17;18A Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 9 07:43:58 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18 follow up At 12:10 PM +0100 4/9/04, D Jongkind wrote:>> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI>> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI>> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive absolute into another>> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI hUPOYTREYANTI EIS>IEEROUSALHM>> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN …>“”And>> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the>> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”> >I am just wondering if Attic Greek would use the construction of EGENETO>with the dative at all, especially in situations as these when the story is>carried forwards “And it happened …”>[This is a genuine question, as I really don’t know].Actually I think you’re right; although Ciceronian Latin prose would usethe dative participles as I suggested (whenever I see something like this,I recall the opening of Cicero’s De Oratore: Cogitanti mihi saepe numero etmemoria vetera repetenti perbeati fuisse, Quinte frater, illi viderisolent), I think that the construction in the present passage owes more toLXX patterns derived from Hebrew narrative idiom than to older standardGreek. This really is a Hebraism.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 9 07:55:00 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A [] Acts 22,17;18 follow up I am not understanding the idea here then of the”subject” of the main clause. It appears that thesubject in both clauses is “I” (Paul). Could someoneexplain how there are two different subjects in theseclauses?— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>wrote:> At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive> Absolute> >because its subject is different from that of the> main> >clause. What is the subject of the main clause> here?> > The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO> MOI) is the compound> infinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive> clause–GENESQAI ME …> KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a trance> and to see …” which in> standard English would become “that I came to be in> a trance and saw …”> > Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive> absolute into another> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI> hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHM> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”And> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem> and was praying in the> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”>> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18A[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 9 08:06:36 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up [] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2 As I said, the infinitive phrase (which in English we would formulate as anoun clause) is the subject of EGENETO MOI. “Myself to get in a trance andto see himhappened to me.” You must realize that this is a complex sentence withclauses subordinated to each other, but syntactically we have to say thatthe predicate of the main clause is EGENETO MOI and the subject is GENESQAI… KAI IDEIN. Perhaps a rough diagrammatic representation might help:GENESQAI MEEN EKSTASEI KAIEGENETO MOIIDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI SPEUSON KAI EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHMI haven’t endeavored to represent the dative participial phrases (theyattach to the MOI of GENESQAI MOI) or the genitive absolute (it attaches toGENESQAI KAI IDEIN by indicating the circumstances of the occurrence of thetrance-vision.At 4:55 AM -0700 4/9/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:>I am not understanding the idea here then of the>“subject” of the main clause. It appears that the>subject in both clauses is “I” (Paul). Could someone>explain how there are two different subjects in these>clauses?> > >— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>wrote:>> At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:>> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI>> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON KAI>> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,>> >>> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive>> Absolute>> >because its subject is different from that of the>> main>> >clause. What is the subject of the main clause>> here?>> >> The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO>> MOI) is the compound>> infinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive>> clause–GENESQAI ME …>> KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a trance>> and to see …” which in>> standard English would become “that I came to be in>> a trance and saw …”>> >> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive>> absolute into another>> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI>> hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHM>> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>> EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”And>> it happened to me when I had returned to Jerusalem>> and was praying in the>> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”>>>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University>> (Emeritus)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)>> 675-4243>> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> > >=====>Eddie Mishoe>Pastor> >__________________________________>Do you Yahoo!?>Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway>http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 9 08:52:39 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up [] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2 I never thought about this before but it does raiseanother question in my mind, namely, what is meant bydifferent “subjects.” It seems like the “experiencer”of both clauses is Paul, but yet “ME” and “MOI” arenot GRAMMATICAL subjects, right? Obviously Paul is recounting what happened to him.Mitch Larramore — “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>wrote:> As I said, the infinitive phrase (which in English> we would formulate as a> noun clause) is the subject of EGENETO MOI. “Myself> to get in a trance and> to see him> happened to me.” You must realize that this is a> complex sentence with> clauses subordinated to each other, but> syntactically we have to say that> the predicate of the main clause is EGENETO MOI and> the subject is GENESQAI> … KAI IDEIN. Perhaps a rough diagrammatic> representation might help:> > > GENESQAI ME> EN EKSTASEI> > KAIEGENETO> MOI> > > IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI SPEUSON> KAI> EXELQE> EN TACEI> EX IEROUSALHM> > I haven’t endeavored to represent the dative> participial phrases (they> attach to the MOI of GENESQAI MOI) or the genitive> absolute (it attaches to> GENESQAI KAI IDEIN by indicating the circumstances> of the occurrence of the> trance-vision.> > At 4:55 AM -0700 4/9/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> >I am not understanding the idea here then of the> >”subject” of the main clause. It appears that the> >subject in both clauses is “I” (Paul). Could> someone> >explain how there are two different subjects in> these> >clauses?> >> >> >— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> >wrote:> >> At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> >> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI> >> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> >> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON> KAI> >> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,> >> >> >> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive> >> Absolute> >> >because its subject is different from that of> the> >> main> >> >clause. What is the subject of the main clause> >> here?> >>> >> The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO> >> MOI) is the compound> >> infinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive> >> clause–GENESQAI ME …> >> KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a> trance> >> and to see …” which in> >> standard English would become “that I came to be> in> >> a trance and saw …”> >>> >> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive> >> absolute into another> >> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI> >> hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHM> >> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN> >> EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”And> >> it happened to me when I had returned to> Jerusalem> >> and was praying in the> >> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”> >> —> >>> >> Carl W. Conrad> >> Department of Classics, Washington University> >> (Emeritus)> >> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> >> 675-4243> >> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> >> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> >> >> >=====> >Eddie Mishoe> >Pastor> >> >__________________________________> >Do you Yahoo!?> >Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway> >http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/> >—> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)> 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/=====Mitch LarramoreSpring Branch, TexasStudent/Memorial High School__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 9 09:55:37 EDT 2004

 

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2 [] Revelation 12.7 At 5:52 AM -0700 4/9/04, Mitch Larramore wrote:>I never thought about this before but it does raise>another question in my mind, namely, what is meant by>different “subjects.” It seems like the “experiencer”>of both clauses is Paul, but yet “ME” and “MOI” are>not GRAMMATICAL subjects, right? Obviously Paul is>recounting what happened to him.MOI is certainly not a grammatical subject, although it could be translatedso as to be one in the target language (PREPEI MOI hOUTWS PRATTEIN “it isappropriate that I should act in this way”); there’s some dispute overwhether one should refer to the accusative form functioning as subject inan infinitive clause as a grammatical subject, but traditional grammar doesindeed use the term that way. You might want to take a look at Smyth,§§1972-1981. Wallace GGBB discusses this on pp. 192ff.Unless a verb is IMPERSONAL (e.g. NEIFEI “it’s snowing” or hUEI “it’sraining”) a verb must have a grammatical subject, whether that’s a noun, apronoun or a substantival phrase or clause. Generally in indirect discourse(except with a finite verb in a hOTI or hINA substantive clause) thesubject of an infinitive is in the accusative if it is different from thesubject of the main verb, or nominative if it is the same as that of themain verb:FHSIN ME TAUTA PRAXAI “he says that I did this.”FHSIN TAUTA PRAXAI AUTOS “he says that he did this himself” (where AUTOS isin agreement with an implicit nominative subject of PRAXAI)>— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>wrote:>> As I said, the infinitive phrase (which in English>> we would formulate as a>> noun clause) is the subject of EGENETO MOI. “Myself>> to get in a trance and>> to see him>> happened to me.” You must realize that this is a>> complex sentence with>> clauses subordinated to each other, but>> syntactically we have to say that>> the predicate of the main clause is EGENETO MOI and>> the subject is GENESQAI>> … KAI IDEIN. Perhaps a rough diagrammatic>> representation might help:>> >> >> GENESQAI ME>> EN EKSTASEI>> >> KAIEGENETO>> MOI>> >> >> IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI SPEUSON>> KAI>> EXELQE>> EN TACEI>> EX IEROUSALHM>> >> I haven’t endeavored to represent the dative>> participial phrases (they>> attach to the MOI of GENESQAI MOI) or the genitive>> absolute (it attaches to>> GENESQAI KAI IDEIN by indicating the circumstances>> of the occurrence of the>> trance-vision.>> >> At 4:55 AM -0700 4/9/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:>> >I am not understanding the idea here then of the>> >”subject” of the main clause. It appears that the>> >subject in both clauses is “I” (Paul). Could>> someone>> >explain how there are two different subjects in>> these>> >clauses?>> >>> >>> >— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>> >wrote:>> >> At 8:31 PM -0700 4/8/04, Eddie Mishoe wrote:>> >> >EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI>> >> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>> >> >EKSTASEI, KAI IDEIN AUTON LEGONTA MOI, SPEUSON>> KAI>> >> >EXELQE EN TACEI EX IEROUSALHM,>> >> >>> >> >PROSEUCOMENOU MOU is identified as a Genitive>> >> Absolute>> >> >because its subject is different from that of>> the>> >> main>> >> >clause. What is the subject of the main clause>> >> here?>> >>>> >> The subject of the main clause (predicate EGENETO>> >> MOI) is the compound>> >> infinitive phrase–functioning like a substantive>> >> clause–GENESQAI ME …>> >> KAI IDEIN …): lit. “me to come to be in a>> trance>> >> and to see …” which in>> >> standard English would become “that I came to be>> in>> >> a trance and saw …”>> >>>> >> Older Attic Greek would have put that genitive>> >> absolute into another>> >> participle in the dative thus: EGENETO DE MOI>> >> hUPOYTREYANTI EIS IEEROUSALHM>> >> KAI PROSEUCOMENWi EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN>> >> EKSTASEI KAI IDEIN … “”And>> >> it happened to me when I had returned to>> Jerusalem>> >> and was praying in the>> >> temple that I came to be in a trance and saw …”>> >> —>> >>>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> >> Department of Classics, Washington University>> >> (Emeritus)>> >> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)>> >> 675-4243>> >> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> >> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>> >>> >>> >=====>> >Eddie Mishoe>> >Pastor>> >>> >__________________________________>> >Do you Yahoo!?>> >Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway>> >http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/>> >—>> > home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> > mailing list>> > at lists.ibiblio.org>> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >>>> >> Carl W. Conrad>> Department of Classics, Washington University>> (Emeritus)>> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)>> 675-4243>> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>>>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > >=====>Mitch Larramore>Spring Branch, Texas>Student/Memorial High School> >__________________________________>Do you Yahoo!?>Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway>http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Acts 22,17;18 follow up2[] Revelation 12.7

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>