# τί ποιήσας (...) κληρονομήσω



## Flaminius

Dear Greek speakers,

The following is a portion of Luke 10:25.

Διδάσκαλε, τί ποιήσας ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω;

I undertand _zōēn aiōnion klēronomēsō_ is "I shall inherit the eternal life" but I am wondering what relation _ti poiēsas_ has with this main clause.  In a very tenuous English, I understand the passage as, "Teacher, having done what, shall I inherit eternal life?"

I would also like to know if this type of question is possible in other Greeks such as Classic Greek and Modern Greek.

Thank you in advance,
Flam


----------



## ireney

Hi there Flam!  A rather confusing post follows.

You got the relation  right but you made a small mistake on tense  It's a participle referring to the subject of the verb (I) and acts like an addverbial participle of means (I think it's called instrumental participle). In English I guess it would be substituted by an adverbial clause such as the one you used.

If you want a more detailed explanation just ask 

Now about the tense: That's the participle of the Aorist which, in its Indicative refers to the past but in all its other forms can refer to the present or future as well. In this case it is used not to refer to the past but because of the aspect it denotes (perfective aspect).

 If it was a present perfect case the participle of the present perfect case would have been used (πεποιηκώς). If you want to translate it as a participle therefore the present participle should be used (by doing what). I've seen it translated as "what shall/must I do to...". That's not a bad translation but there's no way I know of that you can translate it and keep the perfective aspect apparent.

As to your other question. Most definitely in classical Greek (same as in Bible/Koine Greek) and it is even possible in modern Greek although much more rare. We also have less participles by far (one in each of the _two_ voices we've retained) so the indication of aspect goes out the window 
In modern Greek it would be *Κάνοντας τι θα κληρονομήσω (την) αιώνια ζωή*; but such a "construction" is only used when one wants to emphasise the "what" part of the question.


----------



## Flaminius

Ευχάριστο Ireney,  

So τί ποιήσας is an adjunct clause having an indirect relation with the main verb, right?



> It's a participle referring to the subject of the verb (I) and acts like an addverbial participle of means (I think it's called instrumental participle).


Just a final confirmation but is the aorist participle in nominative?  Probably so.  Then, is the interrogative pronoun also nominative or is it accusative?

I don't want this thread to be about "international grammar"  but, comparing the translations of the passage, I realise not so many languages can have a question word in adverbial participle clauses.  Japanese and Spanish are the only exceptions I could find.


----------



## ireney

> So τί ποιήσας is an adjunct clause having an indirect relation with the main verb, right?



Right. It only has a direct relation with the subject of the verb.



> Just a final confirmation but is the aorist participle in nominative? Probably so. Then, is the interrogative pronoun also nominative or is it accusative?



The Participle is in Nominative correct. The interrogative pronoun though is in accusative (I do something ergo something = object = accusative not nominative).

Interesting! I had no idea, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Spectre scolaire

The context in Latin is:



> et interrogavit eum quidam princeps dicens magister bone quid *faciens* vitam aeternam possidebo


 It is the participle which causes the problem.

Latin does not possess anything like an aorist participle. The one used in _Vulgata_ will be interpreted according to the tense of the main verb, I imagine. In both Latin and Greek the main verb is in the future tense, but in Greek there is an aorist participle (ποιήσας) in the introductory clause (which may as well be interpreted as the main clause). How will this function compared to the Latin _present_ participle (faciens)?

If we try to substitute the Greek *a*) _aorist participle_ with *b*) _present participle_ ποιών, or *c*) _perfect participle_ πεποιηκώς, an aspect problem will crop up (as _ireney_ has already alluded to). Let’s consider the Greek version:

Δάσκαλε, τί ποιήσας ζωήν αιώνιον κληρονομήσω;

*a*) lit. ‘having done what, am I going to inherit eternal life’
I am not yet dead, and my actions have not finished, but once I die , what will eventually be the criterion to enter heaven, so to say.

*b*) How will my _present_ life possibly contribute to such a “premium”? The person who asks may as well ask in an ironic way because he knows that Jesus would not accept his way of life. It is therefore a question of what sort of deeds the Δάσκαλος would be in favour of. And having done that (ποιήσας), the way would be open. So he thinks...

*c*) The question would be absurd because the person who asks will a priori know that what he has already done, does not qualify him – and he is still alive and kicking! The Classical Greek participle is _resultative_, it describes the state of affairs rather than the action itself. Modern Greek skipped this verbal category and introduced an analytical form, but in the process, the whole aspectual system went through a reshuffle. 

I am in no way qualified for this type of _exegesis_, and I realize that there are various dogmatic issues at stake here. These may be important for the interpretation of the passage. Of course, the Greeks themselves don’t feel the need for any translation.

The Modern Greek version of our passage would be: Τί να κάνω για να κληρονομήσω αιώνια ζωή;

This is, admittedly, less precise than the _koine_ version. No wonder Roman authors admired the faculty of the [Classical] Greek language to make concise and precise expressions through the use of participles.
 ​


----------



## Flaminius

Just for reference, could I prevail upon you to please parse the Modern Greek rendition?


----------



## ireney

Spectre scolaire:

the modern Greek version you gave is only one of the possible versions.
Τι κάνοντας θα κληρονομήσω αιώνια ζωή; (the participle clause can move to the end or be reversed or be reversed and moved to the end of course)
Με τι πράξεις θα κληρονομήσω αιώνια ζωή;
Έχοντας κάνει τι θα κληρονομήσω αιώνια ζωή;

are other versions  I do agree however that none is as precise as the original.

Flam

* Τί να κάνω για να κληρονομήσω αιώνια ζωή;*
In this version the main clause is "Τι να κάνω" "τι" is again the object and "να κάνω" is the verb (I the subject) in subjunctive.
"για να κληρονομήσω αιώνια ζωή" is the secondary clause indicating purpose/goal (telos). The verb is again is subjunctive " κληρονομήσω" and the subject is again "I". "Αιώνια ζωή" is the verb's object and "για να" is the conjunction that serves the same purpose as "ἳνα"


----------



## anthodocheio

Γεια σε όλους!

Although the English you use in this post is too hard for me to follow every thought you express, I understand that Spectre scolaire analizes the frase more theologicaly than linguisticaly (having at the time a better view of the Greek language than I do...)
Well, 
Am I right?


----------



## ireney

Yes it is a rather theological approach of the matter but then the context does invite some theological ruminations doesn't it?  It is not strictly necessary if you think of what Flaminius really asked about but then this forum is still finding its feet so -as is apparent in other threads too- things are still a bit lax (from my point of view at least  )


----------



## Flaminius

ireney said:


> Now about the tense: That's the participle of the Aorist which, in its Indicative refers to the past but in all its other forms can refer to the present or future as well. In this case it is used not to refer to the past but because of the aspect it denotes (perfective aspect).


Greek aorist participle does not correspond to English perfect participle, okay.  Also, I wasn't aware that English perfect participle cannot express instrumental sense.  Transfer from my native language duly noted.  



Spectre scolaire said:


> *b*) How will my _present_ life possibly contribute to such a “premium”? The person who asks may as well ask in an ironic way because he knows that Jesus would not accept his way of life. It is therefore a question of what sort of deeds the Δάσκαλος would be in favour of. And having done that (ποιήσας), the way would be open. So he thinks...
> 
> *c*) The question would be absurd because the person who asks will a priori know that what he has already done, does not qualify him – and he is still alive and kicking! The Classical Greek participle is _resultative_, it describes the state of affairs rather than the action itself. Modern Greek skipped this verbal category and introduced an analytical form, but in the process, the whole aspectual system went through a reshuffle.


This has been a great exegesis of Greek participles, Spectre!  In ungrammatical but understandable English, I would paraphrase your *b* and *c* as;
*b* On account of what among the things I am doing (or I do now), shall I inherit the eternal life?
*c* On account of what among the things I have done, shall I inherit the eternal life?

Aorist participles denote perfective sense and present perfect participles denote past sense.  Participle system (not only the Greek one) seems to have different tense structure from that of conjugated verbs.

In the final analysis, I believe what we have said here is no more theological than the context is.  Let's hope we could enjoy discussing linguistic aspects of example sentences and keep it apart from the content; however controversial or juicy it is in terms of philosophy, theology, history or just whatever.


----------



## ireney

It just hit me, but in modern Greek έχοντας κάνει τι θα κληρονομήσω (την) αιώνια ζωή might be an even better translation (from the point of view of aspect). Mind you, this pseudo present perfect "participle", in modern Greek, functions as either the ancient Greek participle OR the aorist participle depending on context.

Two examples:

Θα βγάλω λεφτά και, έχοντας βγάλει λεφτά, θα είμαι πλούσιος
I'll make money and, having made money, I'll be rich.

Έβγαλα λεφτά και, έχοντας βγάλει λεφτά, είμαι πλούσιος
I made money and, having made money, I'm rich.

In the context of the original phrase however, none but the most determined prescrivist will ever cast any doubt on its meaning claiming it could mean something else than what it does. I think.


----------

