>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
What I am drawing attention to here is the notion of semantic
marking. I am suggesting that the form of the statement: OUK ESTIN
SOU ANHR is the semantically unmarked way of indicating
possession. It does not draw particular attention to possession.
For this reason it probably does not provide enough information
to determine the nature of ownership which was the force of the
original question.
Mark Obrien asked:
I'm curious to know whether you would see more or less emphasis
if the word order was OUK ESTIN ANHR SOU ? (I.e. with the
possessive pronoun at the end)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well thats a good question, as R.C. Sproul would say. I am sure that
the word order experts on this list would have something to say
about it. I will take a stab at it and then let the experts take a stab
at me (after all, its only e-mail).
There are at least two kinds of semantic *marking* based on word
order. There are positions in a clause that have what we might call
natural prominence. The beginning of a clause and the end of a
clause are considered by many to be positions of natural
prominence. A second form of semantic *marking* is to change the
order from what is normal Koine word order. An example of altered
word order would be a relative pronoun preceding its antecedent.
Using these two criteria lets examine your hypothetical sample
OUK ESTIN ANHR SOU. If this was the word order in John 4:18 then
SOU would appear at the end of a clause. However, there is nothing
abnormal about the word order. I frankly dont think that SOU at
the end of this clause would constitute significant semantic
marking. There is nothing shocking about SOU at the end of a
clause. A finite verb at the beginning or the end of a clause is an
eye catcher (unless you are reading Hebrew or the LXX), but SOU is
not an eye catcher at the end of a clause.
This is a long way of explaining why I dont think this change in
word order would amount to much as increased emphasis.
Postscript:
Even if this concept of ownership was pronounced, it would not
solve the original problem posed for several reasons. For one, as
Carl Conrad pointed out, ANHR is ambiguous. Secondly, if SOU is
emphatic, that alone hardly answers the question of what it means.
Several options are still open. The original question was actually
several questions and I only attempted to address part of one of
them; Is SOU emphatic in this context?
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point