| 29. Linguistic Exegesis The sentence is governed by the subordinating conjunction hina {ἵνα | hí-na} ‘in order that’, which together with the negative particle mepote {μήποτε | mē-po-te} forms a purpose clause expressing a feared outcome. The core verbal idea of this hina-clause is the aorist middle subjunctive arxontai {ἄρξωνται | ár-xōn-tai} ‘may begin’, whose subject is the articular participial phrase pantes hoi theorountes {πάντες οἱ θεωροῦντες | pán-tes hoi the-ō-roûn-tes} ‘all those who see’. Preceding this, the genitive absolute construction thentos autou themelion {θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον | thé-ntos au-toû the-mé-li-on} ‘after he has laid a foundation’ provides a circumstantial, temporally prior action independent of the main clause grammar. The coordinated participial phrase kai mē ischyontos ektelesai {καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι | kaí mē is-khý-on-tos ek-te-lé-sai} extends the genitive absolute, adding the negative circumstance of his not being able to finish. The infinitive empaizein {ἐμπαίζειν | em-paí-zein} functions as the complementary infinitive to arxontai, detailing the action the observers will begin to perform, while auto {αὐτῷ | au-tôi} in the dative marks the person who becomes the target of the mocking. The sequence of genitive absolutes followed by the hina-mepote clause captures a logical flow: given the scenario of incomplete building work, the warning is that observers might start to mock, which is reflected in translation by temporal phrasing (“after someone lays”) followed by a preventive nuance (“lest,” “otherwise”). |