From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Sat Dec 02 2000 - 19:50:40 EST
On 12/2/00 1:50 PM, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
> Wallace also notes that some grammarians also say that it can qualify a
> verb, and that is the way I understood it, so we're not that far apart in
> our understanding of this passage.
Good to hear back from you, Steven.
Yes, some grammarians, as Wallace says, do affirm an epexegetical infinitive
that qualifies a verb. "But," he goes on, "when the inf. qualifies a verb,
it should be treated as complementary." The reader is then referred to the
section of the grammar that treats complementary infinitives. There the
examples of complementary infinitives are anarthrous and are used with
"helper" verbs that are lexically determined. That is, they tend to be verbs
that express an incomplete thought on their own and require the infinitive
to complete their thought. Some examples are ARCOMAI, BOULOMAI, DUNAMAI,
EPITREPW, ZHTEW, QELW, MELLW, and OFEILW. Although adverbial in the sense
that they qualify a verb, they do so *lexically* rather than in categories
we usually associate with "adverbial" (cause, means, purpose, result, time,
etc.). The same is true with nouns and adjectives. They are normally words
that indicate "ability, authority, desire, freedom, hope, need, obligation,
or readiness" (Wallace). One of the keys I have found helpful in determining
when an infinitive is complementary (verbs) and epexegetical (nouns and
adjectives) is to place the word "to" in front of it. This works as well
with nouns and adjectives as with verbs. It's pretty obvious how it works
with the above verbs. For how it works with nouns and adjectives see Lk
10.19; Jn 4.32; 1 Co 7.39; Jm 1.19. To get to the point, if TOU POIHSAI in
Gal 3.10 were epexegetical, we would expect this kind of lexical
relationship rather than an overt adverbial one like means.
> There is not that much difference between calling it a "result" or calling
> it "epexegetical." But the question was whether or not the translation "by
> doing them" was acceptable. IMO it is, it defines what it means to "abide."
I think there is. If it is result, it cannot have an instrumental sense.
These are two different adverbial ideas altogether. Also, I think the whole
idea of an epexegetical infinitive modifying a verb is extremely debatable
as a category. Brooks and Winbery, under "The Substantival Infinitive," use
Gal 3.10 as one example of an infinitive as modifier of a verb, which they
call "epexegetical" (pp. 141f.). But we also find these cautious words:
"There is some question, however, about the necessity and legitimacy of this
category. To a greater or lesser degree most adverbial infinitives are
epexegetical, i.e., they modify a verb. It is possible to explain all of the
following examples in some other way, namely as adverbial infinitives of
purpose or result" (p. 141). In light of the fact that the whole category is
suspicious and that even the best examples can be explained as adverbial
infinitives of purpose or result, I think TOU POIHSAI in Gal 3.10 is best
taken as result.
God bless,
Steve
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:43 EDT