>I'm wondering about the following statement in BAGD (sv, hEWS
>II1b) "w. the gen. of the relative pron. in the neut...".
>The troublesome part is the statement that hOU in the
>phrase hEWS hOU is neuter. What makes me wonder is the
>(I think) parallels with AXRIS/MEXRIS hOU; for example
>BAGD says (sv, AXRI 2a) "w. rel. AXRI hOU (=AXRI XRONOU
>hWi)..." Robertson (Gr., p. 720) seems to agree when he
>says, "But in AXRI hOU (Rev. 2:25) we really have AXRI
>KAIROU hWi (or EN hWi)." Now if these phrases are parallel,
>and what we are dealing with is a pregnant phrase in which
>the XRONOU/KAIROU hWi has been compressed to hOU, then
>shouldn't the implied gender of hOU in every case be
>Masculine and not Neuter ??????
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
***********************************************************************
No.What hEWS hOU compresses is not hEWS TOU XRONOU (KAIROU) hWi but hEWS
TOUTOU (EKEINOU) hWi, where the neuter pronoun TOUTO (EKEINO) replaces the
masc. noun, i.e. we have not ellipsis but (stronger and simpler) deixis.
The mere neuter (= "point") for a masc./fem./neuter noun like XRONOS,
KAIROS, hEMERA etc. is common in Greek. For instance, in hEWS TOU NUN (Mt
24.21) TOU NUN is the gen. of TO NUN (neuter), not of TOU NUN XRONOU/KAIROU
(masculine) minus XRONOU/KAIROU.
Regards
D. Lembo
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Domenico LEMBO Universita' di Napoli
lembodo@ds.cised.unina.it
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=