missing grammar

arkadi · Post by **arkadi** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:14 pm

Hi, everybogy:
I have a quesion concerning the following sentence by a 6th c. AD author John of Scythopolis (PG 4, 17 B):

\\\\\\\\\\\\\
All' en tois Areopagitais te^nikauta chronou bouleo^n, hate
dikaste^s aklinestatos, ho pammegas Dionusios, adekaston
apeneime te^i kata ton pneumatophoron Paulon ale^theiai te^n
pse^phon, erro^sthai te polla phrasas te^ to^n Areopagito^n
anoe^to^i semnote^ti, ton ale^the^ kai panepiskopon krite^n
ennoias Christon Ie^soun, ton tou Theou kai Patros Huion
monogene^ kai Logon, hon ho Paulos eke^ruxen, euthus eicheto
tou pho^tos.
\\\\\\\\\\

The meaning is clear, but I am at a loss how exactly (grammatically) to construe "ennoias" here.
I would be happy if it were "ennoe^sas" instead! Yet it is exactly as it stands, and neither Latin nor English nor Russian translation that I have before me seems to have any problem with this (my guess is, though, that the latter two depend on the first one :>).
Many thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Arkadi

ximo · Post by **ximo** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:14 am

I don't know the context of the paragraph, but according to morphology, ennoias is genitive adnominal depending on previous kriten. The meaning could be something as "the judge of the mind/thought" or something similar. But I'm not sure this will help you.

arkadi · Post by **arkadi** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:44 pm

Thanks! I thought about this. But then how would you construe it with the "eicheto"? On this reading "the judge of the mind/thought" shoud be the object of this verb.
But what should one then do with the "tou pho^tos"?
(I apologize for the typo: "smenote^ti" should read semnote^ti)