[sword-devel] kjv2003: An old topic, infinitive/participle

[Keith Ralston]

My question was regarding the and that had been added between the verbs in
the infinitive and the participle.  Of course, to belongs with un loose,
that is the infinitive.  Where does the conjunction belong?  As I am
observing the KJV translation style, I am thinking the conjunction should be
tagged with the participle.  They seem to translate the participle with this
style in many places.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org
> [mailto:owner-sword-devel@crosswire.org]On Behalf Of Eeli Kaikkonen
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:44 PM
> To: sword-devel@crosswire.org
> Subject: [sword-devel] kjv2003: An old topic, infinitive/participle
>
>
> Keith Ralston asked about Mark 1:7 some time ago. I had a similar
> problem. I think that in Mark the basic meaning is "I'm not worthy to
> unloose". "kupsas" or participle generally - not in this case
> particularly - may mean e.g. "after stooping down", "stooping down at
> the same time" or  "because of stooping down" or even "regardless of
> the fact that I stooped down". In this case "kupsas" tells under what
> circumstances the unloosing happens.
>
> Therefore I would tag "stoop down and" and "to unloose".
>
>   Sincerely Yours,
>       Eeli Kaikkonen <eekaikko@paju.oulu.fi> Suomi Finland
>