That wherein the things that are becoming are set must precisely not proffer its own look and its own appearance. [The reference to the Timaeus passage not only intends to clarify the correlation of παρεμφαῖνον and ὄν, of appearing-with and of Being as constancy, but also tries to intimate that Platonic philosophy, [51|71] that is, the interpretation of Being as ἰδέα, prepared the transfiguration of place (τόπος) and of χώρα, the essence of which we have barely grasped, into “space” as defined by extension. Might not χώρα mean: that which separates itself from every particular, that which withdraws, and in this way admits and “makes room” precisely for something else?]12 Let us return to the word form λέξαιντο that we mentioned above. What it does is make manifest a ποικιλία <diversity: Timaeus 50d> of directions of meaning. This is why it is called an ἔγκλισις παρεμφατικός, a deviation, which is capable of making manifest in addition person, number, tense, voice, and mood. This is because a word as such is a word to the extent that it lets shine forth (δηλοῦν). If we place the form λέγειν, the infinitive, next to λέξαιντο, then we also find here an inflection, ἔγκλισις, in respect to the fundamental form λέγω, but one in which person, number, and mood do not manifest themselves. Here the ἔγκλισις and its significant making-manifest show a deficiency, and so this word form is called ἔγκλισις ἀ-παρεμφατικός. In Latin, the term modus infinitivus corresponds to this negative term. The meaning of the infinitive form is not limited or cut to shape in the respects mentioned above, according to person, number, etc. The Latin translation of ἀ-παρεμφατικός by in-finitivus deserves attention. The original Greek, which refers to the look of a thing and the self-manifestation of what stands in itself or inclines itself, has vanished. Now the determining factor is the merely formal notion of limitation.
12. In parentheses in the 1953 edition.