infinitive with nominative?

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
arkadi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:02 pm

infinitive with nominative?

Post by arkadi »

Hi, everybody:
Here is the beginning of a sentence:

Ei gar ousia te^s en hekasto^i arete^s ho heis hyparchein Logos tou THeou me^ amphibeble^tai, ktl.

The meaning is clear, yet I do not understand why "ousia", "ho", "heis", and "Logos" are in the nominative here, rather then in accusative (as the use of the infinitive "hyparchein" seems to me to require). Is there any rule which could explain this?

Many thanks in advance.
A.

Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Post by Skylax »

Obviously, it is a personal construction, see Smyth § 1982. Ho Logos is primarily the subject of amfibeble^tai, thus in the nominative, and also, secondarily, of the infinitive.

Now the meaning is not so clear for me. I understand :

"For, if one does not doubt that the unique Reason of God is the essence of virtue in everyone..."

Can you give the true meaning ? Is it a sentence by Plotinus ? Can you give some reference ? Or the rest of the sentence ?

arkadi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by arkadi »

Thanks a lot! This paragraph in Smyth gives exactly the explanation I needed. Somehow this was a lacuna in my background.
You got the meaning right. The text is by St. Maximus, a 7th century theologian. The only edition so far is:
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, v.91 1081 C-D.

Skylax
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:18 am
Location: Belgium

Post by Skylax »

arkadi wrote: The text is by St. Maximus, a 7th century theologian. The only edition so far is:
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, v.91 1081 C-D.
Thanks !

Post Reply