I asked this question in other place and got no answer. I am sure Michael, Hylander or any number of other knowledgeable classical guys who particapte here can handle this. Simple question but not having read texts with loads of διὸ clauses I don’t know the answer.
We find occasions with ἵνα where members of the ἵνα clause preceed ἵνα. Does that ever happen with διὸ?
I don’t expect so, since διο is δι’ὃ “because of which,” and relatives are less amenable to being pushed forward by a salient component than the lightweight ἵνα.
How often does it happen with ἵνα?
I’m deleting what I wrote because mwh anticipated me and put it better.
Thanks for the replies.
At what point did δι’ὃ become simply a particle? Everywhere in the leixons the etymology is described as δι’ὃ. Just wondering if by time we get to Koine the etymology has been lost and it is functioning as a inferential conjunction. I find only one occurance of δι᾿ ὃ in NT and one in the LXX. Perhaps by that time it simply functioned as a particle but I really don’t know. I have a 6 ft shelf of grammars. They don’t answer the question.
Col. 4:3 προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι,
Wis. 18:19 οἱ γὰρ ὄνειροι θορυβήσαντες αὐτοὺς τοῦτο προεμήνυσαν,
ἵνα μὴ ἀγνοοῦντες δι᾿ ὃ κακῶς πάσχουσιν ἀπόλωνται.
Wonder how the editors decied between δι᾿ ὃ and διὸ in the uncials?
Hard to say when διο no longer registered as δι’ὅ, if ever. Cf. use of “Which is why” in English.
Easy to see why editors print δι’ ὅ in the two passages you quote, where the relative clause is embedded within the continuing sentence.
How about postponed ἵνα?
This isn’t controversial. I was using it to explain my question about διὸ.
See Tony Pope’s response to Stephen Carlson for a list of NT examples.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=2781
Re: 2 Cor 2:4 τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα γνῶτε Word Order
Postby Tony Pope » October 20th, 2014, 3:07 amFor comparison, here are more NT examples of elements extraposed from a ἵνα clause. How would you say these resemble the 2 Cor 2.4 example from an information structure point of view?
John 13.29b ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἢ τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τι δῷ.
Acts 19.4 εἶπεν δὲ Παῦλος· Ἰωάννης ἐβάπτισεν βάπτισμα μετανοίας, τῷ λαῷ λέγων εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον μετ’ αὐτὸν ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
1 Cor. 9.15 (MS C al) καλὸν γάρ μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου ἵνα τις κενώσει.
Gal. 2.10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.
Col. 4.16 καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ’ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή, ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικαίων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ, καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε.
Rev 13.13 (M-K text) καὶ ποιεῖ σημεῖα μεγάλα, καὶ πῦρ ἵνα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνῃ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπωνDebatable examples:
John 11.16 ἄγωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἵνα ἀποθάνωμεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ.
Zahn argued that Thomas could not be made to say “Let us go also” since it was obvious that the disciples would accompany their master. It makes more sense that he should say “Let us go that we also may die with him.”John 17.13 νῦν δὲ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι, καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἵνα ἔχωσιν τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν πεπληρωμένην ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
Again, Zahn argued it would be inappropriate for Jesus to say in the same breath “I am now coming to you and I am saying these things in the world”. (I am not so convinced of this one personally.)Rom. 11.31 οὕτως καὶ οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἐλέει, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ [νῦν] ἐλεηθῶσιν.
Commentators divide on this one, some arguing that it should be punctuated with the comma after ἠπείθησαν.
Tony PopePosts: 80
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm
Thanks Stirling. I know it occurs, and I’m familiar with instances. My question was How often?, and whether or not it answers the question, the post you copy is very helpful.
Interesting to see how far ινα has traveled from classical usage in the direction of να in modern.
relatives are less amenable to being pushed forward by a salient component than the lightweight ἵνα.
That’s not to say that in some kinds of poetry relatives can’t also be deferred, e.g.
Eur. Alc. 428 τέθριππά θ᾽ οἳ ζεύγνυσθε καὶ μονάμπυκας | πώλους, σιδήρῳ τέμνετ᾽ αὐχένων φόβην (“and you who yoke four-horse teams and single steeds, cut their manes with iron").
Such dislocation marks a higher stylistic register (as with hyperbaton), but the driver is metrical expediency rather than foregrounding.
As the ινα examples show (and mod.Gk. να still more clearly), there’s pulling as well as pushing. The verb has gravitational force.