subj. + future

[Boris Repschinski]

In Mt 5:25 there is an odd construction where one verb in subjunctive and another in the future tense are used in parallel. The phrase looks like this: 

 

μήποτέ σε παραδῷ (Subjunctive) ὁ ἀντίδικος … καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ (future tense)·

 

How would I go about constructing a search that finds all such occurrences of a subjunctive and future tense at the same syntactical level. I'v tried to tinker a bit syntactical searches, but that did not get me very far.

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.

 

BR

Edited September 11, 2018 by Boris Repschinski

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi BR,

 

  Try this and see if that helps you out :

 

 

Thx

D

[Boris Repschinski]

Thanks, Daniel. It helps narrowing things down a bit, but something like Mt 4:6 - which is found with that search - does not really qualify since the subjunctive προσκόψῃς follows μήποτε and is, therefore, not constructed in parallel with the future of ἐντελεῖται or ἀροῦσιν. And such examples abound in that search.

 

I am probably not really good at expressing what I am after, but basically I am looking for a construction of a sentence or clause with two verbs, one of them in the subjunctive, the other in the future.

Edited September 12, 2018 by repschinski

[Λύχνις Δαν]

This is an additional constraint on the search that could be added. But I'll note that in Mt 5:25 μηποτε precedes the subj also. Thus excluding hits with μηποτε will also exclude 5:25. Incidentally my search does not find Mt 4:6. Can you post a screen shot of your search ?

 

Also, in order to get what you want we need a complete, as complete as possible anyway, specification of what you are looking to find. So far I have subj not preceded by μηποτε (do you mean immediately or just in the same clause ?) and followed by another clause containing a fut ind. Is that correct ?

 

I'm a little pushed for time right now but will try to post back later some thoughts on the things I'm seeing and doing. Maybe that will help.

Thx

D

[Timothy Jenney]

Interesting coincidence. Plummer's Daily Does of Greek for today dealt with the same issue: http://dailydoseofgreek.com/scripture-passage/revelation-3-9/

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I see how you got Mt 4:6. You have search both directions checked. I didn't. In 4:6 the order of the subj and the fut ind are reversed. I followed the ordering in Mt 5:25 in your first example. Please let me know if order matters or not too.

 

Thx

D

[Boris Repschinski]

Just watched Plummer's piece - really interesting coincidence, and it makes clear what I am after - though as Mt 5:25 shows, the phenomenon occurs not only with ἴνα-clauses.

 

@Daniel: The issue is not that I want to exclude μήποτε, the issue is that in Mt 4:6 it subordinates the subjunctive to the clause with the future tenses. What I am looking for is where future and subjunctive (or the other way round) are syntactically at the same level; which they are in 5:25 since there both are part of a μήποτε clause.

 

And why 4:6 was found? Perhaps because I checked "search both directions" - I entered the same search as in your screen shot. Order does not matter to me, just the combination.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Boris Repschinski

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Boris, Thanx for the clarification. Ok we then need to study the 5:25 and 4:6 examples and how they are modelled in the syntax to represent the coordinate versus subordinate relationship and modify the query appropriately. I'll try to look further at this tonight. 

 

thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi Boris,

 

  I reworked the query paying attention to the difference in the structure of the subordinating and coordinating cases. This query looks very similar to the first but rather than an enclosing CLAUSE I am using an enclosing PHRASE. Reviewing the first three cases they appear to better suit your intent.

 

 

Thx

D

[Boris Repschinski]

They do indeed - thanks a lot, Daniel. It now does wat I am after to some extent; yet Mt 24:35 does not show up here. But I may play around with this search a bit.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Boris Repschinski

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Welcome.

 

Ok so the problem there is that the top level structure is a clause (in this case reported speech) rather than a phrase, and that the predicates are not each in their own clauses. As you tweak this a bit you'll likely introduce more false positives as you try to reduce false negatives like this one. An alternative is to build another search like the one I gave you but aimed at structures like Mt 24:35 and then <OR> the two together.

 

It will take a little experimentation to get it right.

 

Thx

D