Re: Grammar question: Imperatival use of participle

Thanks to Owen for the link.

And related to Barry’s comment on judging past scholars by present standards, I just read this the other day (I believe it isn’t behind a paywall):
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F01%2F08%2Fbooks%2Freview%2Fedith-wharton-house-of-mirth-anti-semitism.html&data=02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40lsv.uky.edu%7Cbe83fa85a0eb4c0cfd4d08d677e9503f%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C0%7C636828241296377047&sdata=qdoj7vy9suM1iHpX8116cUcsaP0Sz3tEOHFXrsfxZ%2Bc%3D&reserved=0

Safelinks avoidance:
https://www [.] nytimes [.] com/2019/01/08/books/review/edith-wharton-house-of-mirth-anti-semitism [.] html

Enjoy!
James
_______________________
James Spinti
Proofreading and copyediting of ancient Near Eastern and biblical studies monographs
E-mail: jdspinti at gmail dot com
Phone: 260-445-3118
1835 South Park St
Red Wing MN 55066

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 6:52 PM, Hofstetter Barry <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> That paper is fun. It basically says "The participles are imperatival, but they are not imperatival for the reason you think they are imperatival." 
> I would conceptualize the grammar here by seeing such participles as essentially epexegetical -- they are explaining component actions necessary or involved with the main verb, which happens to be imperative. In English, we don't use participles that way -- we express the action in a series of imperatives instead, and context informs us how they fit together (as it really does in Greek as well). 
> As for Robertson's not so closet racism, *yawn.* Does it detract from his scholarship? Then why bother to bring it up? Find me a white man born in 1863 without racist baggage -- now that would be news.
> 
<snip>