RE: OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR again
I Wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
><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).
Of course!
>
>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.
>
These seems sensible to me... but also seems to contradict your earlier point
that "the form of the statement: OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR is the semantically unmarked
way of indicating possession." My immediate thought (prompting my question) was
that OUK ESTIN ANHR SOU is actually the regular ("unmarked"?) way of indicating
possession.
>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.
>
Agreed.
>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?
I think it may be (given the fact that it would normally come after the
antecedent), but as you say, this doesn't really solve the original problem,
unless perhaps it suggests that this was someone else's husband...
Anyway, no big deal... your commetn just piqued my curiosity.
Regards,
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary