At 8:20 PM 2/8/97, PETER.SCOTT@resonet.com wrote:
>Carl W Conrad wrote:
>
>No, not really--this is repetition of the immediately preceding objects of
>EIDEN
>(IAKWBON ... KAI IWANNHN) followed by an emphatic AUTOUS emphasized further by
>an adverbial KAI: " ... saw James ... & John, them also in the boat ..." I
>would
>undestand this KAI AUTOUS as clarifying that Jesus encountered James and
>John on
>the coastline and on a boat just as he had previously encountered Simon and
>Andrew. By this accounting, AUTOUS is in apposition to the proper noun objects.
>
>An alternative way of reading it is to take AUTOUS as the subject of the
>participle KATARTIZONTAS; since a verb o perception takes indirect discourse
>with a participle rather than with an infinitive you can
>understand this as " ... saw James ... & John and that they were mending ... "
>
>---------- end of Conrad.
Carl's alternate way will work better without the "and that"; i.e. take KAI
AUTOUS as he does in alternative one and then assume indirect statement,
e.g. "...saw that James ... and John ... even they were mending...."
Otherwise we have to take EIDEN in the two sense of simple sight and
intellectual perception in the same line. However I think alternative one
is better.
. . .
>By slotting the words by part of speech and case we get the following picture:
>the sentence is an S-V-O-OC, with S-V = EIDEN, O = IAKWBON ... IWANNHN
>ktl, OC =
>AUTOUS. (I think I have cases and agreement sorted out correctly.) The
>KATARTIZONTAS TA DIKTUA is left simply as a durative supplementary participle,
>functioning adjectivally, with an object, cf. Mt 24:30. According to this
>theory
>AUTOUS is a personal pronoun, in the Acc. because it is an OC in agreement with
>the O, and KATARTIZONTAS modifies the pronoun, so is in agreement with it.
>(This is different from the Infinitive with Acc. subject used in indirect
>discourse.)
I don't think this works, because to have an object complement--if the term
is used in the sense that Smyth has under "external object and predicate
accusative", sec. 1613--one has to have a verb whose meaning causes some
kind of change in the direct object. If this is what Peter has in mind,
EIDEN clearly will not work. If I misunderstand him, though, it is because
the term "OC" is ambiguous to me and I need clarification.
. . .
>The theory eliminates the need for special rules for participles in indirect
>discourse, treating them simply as supplementary participles, and allowing the
>normal rules of agreement to hold.
As a matter of fact, the normal rules of agreement do hold. I take it Peter
means that we need not use indirect discourse as a subcategory
supplementary participles. We do so only because it is convenient, which is
true for other subcategories as well.
>My understanding of an appositonal construction would produce examples such as
>"King George" or "President Lincoln", or in Greek, "O ANQRWPOS O KALOS".
>AUTOUS, in this case, is a 3rd pl. personal pronoun referring to the two
>fellows
>who were seen.
Then you may need to reconsider your understanding of apposition. Each of
your examples is a use of the attributive adjective, not apposition as it
is generally recognized. The difference can be subtle though; in essence,
the force of apposition is equivalent to our use of "i.e." as in "Bill
Clinton, i.e. the grocery store clerk," or "Peter--Mr. Scott (not the
Apostle)".
Don Wilkins
UC Riverside