hUPOLAMBANW hOTI *hWi TO PLEION EXARISATO*
Now let's assume that Simon had been more loquacious and had
replaced the string enclosed in asterisks with:
(1) *PLEION AGAPHSEI AUTON hWi TO PLEION EXARISATO*
My first question is, would this longer response make sense in NT
Greek? If not, where does the fault lie in this response. (Is AUTON
unacceptable?)
Now assuming that the previous example makes sense in NT Greek
would the following change in word order be acceptable? If not,
where does the fault lie with this word order?
(2) *AUTON hWi TO PLEION EXARISATO PLEION AGAPHSEI*
Now assuming that both of these examples make sense in NT Greek
we have established that the word sequence *AUTON hWi TO PLEION
EXARISATO* is a movable unit. If it is a movable unit then it is
probably also a *constituent* is it not?
If all of this discussion seems rather off the wall then look at page 44
of *Levels of Constituent Structure in New Testament Greek*,
Micheal W. Palmer, (Peter Lang 1995) where this example appears.
Micheal Palmer states that the word sequence *AUTON hWi TO PLEION
EXARISATO* is not "a phrase level constituent (or a constituent of
any kind) of any possible sentence."
I am not arguing that Micheal is wrong. I am raising three questions
for discussion. Are word sequences (1) and (2) intelligible NT Greek?
Is the word sequence *AUTON hWi TO PLEION EXARISATO* a movable
unit? If it is a movable unit does it qualify as a *constituent* of some
kind?
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point