From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue May 16 2000 - 17:20:54 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:26 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: Eph. 5:33</title></head><body>
<div>At 4:46 PM -0700 5/16/00, Michael Abernathy wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
size="-1">Harold,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Sorry, I was unclear.
What I meant was while both clauses are absolute imperatives, my
inclination would be to interpret ìna to mean that the respect
(although expected regardless of the husbands behavior) would be the
normative consequence of his obedience to the command to love his
wife. I hope that is somewhat clearer. </font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
size="-1">Sincerely</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="-1">Michael
Abernathy</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>In my opinion this is rather questionable; hINA + subjunctive
does not normally introduce a RESULT clause but rather a purpose
clause, and in this case I personally doubt it's a purpose clause
either. I think the hINA clause is a substantive clause; since
there's a DE with it, I'd take it as an added imperative equivalent
to the first one which is actually expressed with the morphological
imperative: "and that the wife should respect her
husband."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>