prepositions governing infinitives

[A. Smith]

I'm expanding the thesis that infinitives governed by a preposition in the NT are always articular. I want to see if in the Greek OT there are any instances of prepositions governing infinitives without the article. I've done this construct search within every clause but it's not limited to prep and inf within the same syntactical unit (for eg,  ποταμὸς δὲ ἐκπορεύεται ἐξ Εδεμ ποτίζειν τὸν παράδεισον, where ἐξ does not govern ποτίζειν). Another example (from the NT) is Acts 4.30. ἐν τῷ  ⸂τὴν χεῖρά [σου] ἐκτείνειν σε⸃ εἰς ἴασιν καὶ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα γίνεσθαι διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἁγίου παιδός σου Ἰησοῦ, where εἰς does not govern γίνεσθαι and they are, in fact, two separate, dependent clauses. I recognize we don't have a syntax of the LXX modules, but is there a way to limit false hits on  this search of the LXX? Also, while we're at it, can someone tell me how to run this search in the NT, taking advantage of the syntactic database? TIA

 

 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Anthony,

 

  I have been meaning to respond to this since you sent - hopefully these few notes are of some use.

 

  Usually to get something working in the syntax trees I look for an example of the thing I am studying to see how it is modelled in the database. I then construct a search based on the syntax chart to find that example. With that in hand I can then tweak it to find variations or negations and so on.

 

  As an example here I took Μαθθαῖον 13·4 καὶ ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτὸν ἃ μὲν ἔπεσεν παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, καὶ ἐλθόντα τὰ πετεινὰ κατέφαγεν αὐτά. If you open the NA28 in parallel with the syntax you can see how it looks. I then formulated this search :

 

 

  Now this search finds Matt 13:4 and a number of other examples in Matt. I didn't bother running it much on the whole text, so that I saved some time.

 

  Then you can try negating the article and sure enough it will return no hits. This doesn't though prove much. The problem is that the search is very specific and there may be other examples of constructions of different types in the NT that do show the thing you are trying to check for. So the results of your search above can be sifted through for examples of other constructions that might be checked for, or modifications that might make it less specific. For example I am looking for these constructions in an adjunct. Perhaps they occur in a complement. That should be checked.

 

  The simpler less specific non-syntax searches bring back a lot of hits and a lot of dross, but they can show you things that a too narrowly configured syntax search will miss so they are helpful in cross-checking the results and in studying the phenomena to see how the syntax db handles it.

 

I'll take a look at the LXX and see what I think.

 

Thx

D

[A. Smith]

Thank you! I haven’t had time to get back to this (won’t till the new year) but I’ve marked this post to remember. Thanks again.