[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #48
b-greek-digest Saturday, 16 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 048
In this issue:
Re: English grammar help
Re: English grammar help
Re: Marcan Pidgin Greek
Re: English grammar help
To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
Re: English grammar help
Re: English grammar help
1 Peter 1:2
evangelism of Christ (fwd)
Re: 1 Peter 1:2
Re: English grammar help
Call for mnemonics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@ropes.reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 7:54:03 EST
Subject: Re: English grammar help
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 10:25 PM 12/13/95, James D. Ernest wrote:
>>I beg the indulgence of list members for a question of English grammar.
Although about English, I hope to relate this message to the analogous
rules of Greek grammar and therefore be relevant to this list.
>>Which is correct (grammatically):
>>A: The Son of Man is the Messiah whom Jesus claims to be.
>>B: The Son of Man is the Messiah who Jesus claims to be.
>> ^^^
>>A: Jesus claims to be him.
>>B; Jesus claims to be he.
>> ^^
>>If pressed: I vote for the nominative.
>I too vote for the nominative in the above instances,
In light of other comments on this list calling for the objective
case (whom, him), I looked this issue up in my favorite reference
for the English language, R. Quick et al., A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1985), and I found that certain verbs, one
of which is "to claim," take a subjectless infinitive clause as its
direct object. The 'understood' subject of this clause is "always
the same as the subject of the superordinatate clause." [Id. at
1187, # 16.38]. This means that the nominative is correct.
This grammatical rule in English was probably inherited from its
Indo-European ancestor, for we see its analog in Greek (and Latin).
Normally the expressed subject of an infinitive stands in the
accusative, if it is omitted, the subject of the infinitive is the
same as the subject or object of the governing clause [Smyth # 1972].
When the implied subject of the infinitive is the same as the subject
of the governing clause, the complement stands in the nominative [Id.
# 1973]. This rule appears to hold up in the Koine as well [BDF ##
396, 405; e.g. He11:4 EMARTURHQH EIVAI DIKAIOS], and also Latin if
my memory of it is correct.
The writers of this English grammar notes that for informal English,
the grammatical rule is changing from a case concord rule to a
territoriality rule. Basically, pronouns are found either in a
"subject territory" (before the verb) or in an "object territory"
(after the verb or preposition). Under this analysis, the rule favors
"who" in "The Son of Man is the Messiah who Jesus claims to be" because
"who" is in subject territory; and "him" in "Jesus claims to be him"
because "him" is in object territory. Territoriality is the reason
why "whom" is disappearing. Except after prepositions, as in "to whom,"
"whom" is always found in subject territory and therefore can be replaced
in informal English with "who." After prepositions, "whom" is in
object territory, so we almost never hear "to who"; however, English
allows the preposition to be moved after the verb, so the remaining "whom"
can be converted to "who" because it is now in subject territory.
Examples:
- - You're the person to whom I spoke. [Formal & Informal: object territory]
- - *You're the person to who I spoke. [Ungrammatical: object territory]
- - You're the person whom I spoke to. [Formal: objective case concord]
- - You're the person who I spoke to. [Informal: subject territory]
> but I hear in ever
>greater frequency the nominative used where it shouldn't, according to the
>old-timey rules: "This is the very best thing for HE AND I" and the like.
This phenomenon is due to a different informal English rule (one I saw
defended by an English professor on PBS!) in which certain compounds are
so tightly bound together that they become indeclinable. I suppose that
this is similar to Rv1:4 APO hO WN ktl. ("a very harsh construction" BDF
# 143 n.)
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 07:12:12 -0800
Subject: Re: English grammar help
You wrote:
>
>In light of other comments on this list calling for the objective
>case (whom, him), I looked this issue up in my favorite reference
>for the English language, R. Quick et al., A COMPREHENSIVE GRAMMAR
>OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1985), and I found that certain verbs, one
>of which is "to claim," take a subjectless infinitive clause as its
>direct object. The 'understood' subject of this clause is "always
>the same as the subject of the superordinatate clause." [Id. at
>1187, # 16.38]. This means that the nominative is correct.
>
>..snip.. This rule appears to hold up in the Koine as well [BDF ##
>396, 405; e.g. He11:4 EMARTURHQH EIVAI DIKAIOS], and also Latin if
>my memory of it is correct.
!!Neat!!
>
>The writers of this English grammar notes that for informal English,
>the grammatical rule is changing from a case concord rule to a
>territoriality rule. Basically, pronouns are found either in a
>"subject territory" (before the verb) or in an "object territory"
>(after the verb or preposition). Under this analysis, the rule favors
>"who" in "The Son of Man is the Messiah who Jesus claims to be" because
>"who" is in subject territory; and "him" in "Jesus claims to be him"
>because "him" is in object territory.
??Does that mean we're slowly doing away with predicate nominatives??
>
>Examples:
>- You're the person to whom I spoke. [Formal & Informal: object
territory]
>- *You're the person to who I spoke. [Ungrammatical: object territory]
>- You're the person whom I spoke to. [Formal: objective case concord]
>- You're the person who I spoke to. [Informal: subject territory]
>
I was taught never to use a preposition to end a sentence with.
>
>Stephen Carlson
PS: Here's installment #1 of the English grammar hotline answer.
"Ellen--WHO--we had reached a conclusion, but we were up to our ears in
dealing with students and final exams. More later. AHC
Anna Clark
Department of English
The University of Tennessee at Martin"
Would it be okay if I forwarded them your post? They might appreciate the
information.
Thanks,
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@ropes.reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 11:42:37 EST
Subject: Re: Marcan Pidgin Greek
For convenience' sake, I present the verses under discussion synoptically:
Mt9:16 OUDEIS DE EPIBALLEI EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS AGNAFOU
Mk2:21 OUDEIS EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS AGNAFOU EPIRAPTEI
Lk5:36 ... OUDEIS EPIBLHMA APO hIMATIOU KAINOU SXISAS EPIBALLEI
Mt9 EPI hIMATION PALAION: AIREI GAR TO PLHRWMA AUTOU APO hIMATION
Mk2 EPI hIMATION PALAION: EI DE MH AIREI TO PLHRWMA AP' AUTOU
Lk5 EPI hIMATION PALAION: EI DE MH GE
Mt9 KAI XEIRON SXISMA GINETAI
Mk2 TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU KAI XEIRON SXISMA GINETAI
Lk5 KAI TO KAINON SXISEI KAI TWi PALAIWi OU SUMFWNETAI TO E. TO APO TOU KAINOU
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I want to continue the discussion of Marcan Greek that is at best
> substandard (in comparison, certainly to Matthean and Lucan Greek) and at
> worst barbarous.
> While I don't really want to make a big issue of source criticism here, I
> will comment in passing, as I cite the versions of the three synoptics,
> that I cannot imagine the Marcan text ever having been written as an
> improvement upon or a conceivable condensation of either the Matthean or
> Lucan form of the text.
I don't want to make a big issue of it either, but Mark's Greek here
presents little difficulty for the Matthean priority, because Matthew's
Greek gives a similar problem for the subject/object of AIREI. Griesbach
advocates would say that this is a clear case of a conflation of Matthew
and Luke.
[On Mk2:21]
> 21a is unproblematic, but although the meaning of 21b is clear enough, the
> syntax is scarcely decipherable. What is the subject of AIREI? Is it TO
> PLHRWMA as a synonym for EPIBLHMA? the patch, the fill-in? "The patch pulls
> from it the new (from) the old ..." Or is TO PLHRWMA the object of AIREI,
> and the subject must then be TO KAINON? "It pulls the patch away from
> it--the new (cloth) does--from the old (cloth) ..." This is what I think is
> more likely, but I am far from happy with it, and I can't help but wonder:
> couldn't Mark have expressed himself just a little bit more clearly?
To me, it looks like TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU is just one of many
examples of Mark's dualism (a salient stylistic trait of his text).
Perhaps anticipating the new wine in old wineskins of Mk2:22 =
Mt9:17, Mark identifies TO KAINON with TO PLHRWMA = EPIBLHMA hRAKOUS
AGNAFOU; similarly TOU PALAIOU is to be identified with AUTOU =
hIMATION PALAION. Thus, TO KAINON TOU PALAIOU forms a separate
clause, sharing the previous verb by ellipsis. Once AIREI TO PLHRWMA
AP' AUTOU is understood as a separate clause, its grammatical
analysis can proceed in the same manner as the Matthean parallel.
[On Mt9:16]
> Here there's none of this "new and old" (the Greek phrase for the first of
> the month) in the second clause. But again there's the question: is TO
> PLHRWMA the subject or the object of AIREI? And if it's the object, then
> what is the subject? "For the patch pulls away from the garment and the rip
> gets worse." Or is it "For it pulls the patch-cloth away from the garment
> ..." What pulls? At any rate, this is a good deal clearer than Mark's
> version, from which it certainly appears to be derived. Let's look at Luke.
The real problem in both Matthew and Mark is that the two appear to
be using AIRW absolutely, without an expressed object (perhaps it
should have been a middle or passive?). I was able to find at least
one example of AIRW in the active used absolutely, but it could be a
technical expression (Ac27:13 ARANTES ASSON PARELEGONTO THN KRHTHN,
presumably AGKURAN, anchor, is implied). In this situation (Mt9:16),
it would be understood as the patch pulling at garment. Since both
Evangelists have the same construct, I can't see any source critical
inference can be drawn.
[On Lk5:36]
> This is the only altogether clear version of the saying. "Shreds" of KAINON
> and PALAION from the patchwork of Mark survive sufficiently, it appears, to
> indicate that this is indeed a reformulation of the Marcan text.
Or, to keep our options open, it may an extensive reworking of the
Matthean text, again perhaps in anticipation of the very next saying.
Such reworking is not entirely out of the question, because Lk5:36c
is also quite different from its Matthean (and Markan) parallel.
My only point with my source critical comments is to highlight the
fact that there is often a credible explanation for the redactional
activity of the synoptic Evangelists under all three major theories.
We are just so used to looking at it only from the standpoint of
Markan priority. The evidence from this parallel, as in many other
places, is simply inconclusive.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@ropes.reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 12:07:26 EST
Subject: Re: English grammar help
Ellen Adams wrote:
> >The writers of this English grammar notes that for informal English,
> >the grammatical rule is changing from a case concord rule to a
> >territoriality rule. Basically, pronouns are found either in a
> >"subject territory" (before the verb) or in an "object territory"
> >(after the verb or preposition). Under this analysis, the rule favors
> >"who" in "The Son of Man is the Messiah who Jesus claims to be" because
> >"who" is in subject territory; and "him" in "Jesus claims to be him"
> >because "him" is in object territory.
>
> ??Does that mean we're slowly doing away with predicate nominatives??
Yes. We are slowly becoming like the French and the Louis who said
"L'etat, c'est moi" -- no predicate nominative there (*"L'etat, c'est
je" is a faux-pas.). The territoriality rule seems to govern French
grammar in this respect.
[...]
> Would it be okay if I forwarded them your post? They might appreciate the
> information.
Feel free to send it on.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: wiles@max.muhlberg.edu
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:07:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
subscribe B-GREEK Virginia Wiles
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:58:28 +0400
Subject: Re: English grammar help
> It is the accusative. The subject of an infinitival phrase is in
>the accusative case. always.
>
>liz
Amen
Calton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 10:23:36 -0600
Subject: Re: English grammar help
At 9:12 AM 12/15/95, Mike Adams wrote:
>>Examples:
>>- You're the person to whom I spoke. [Formal & Informal: object
>territory]
>>- *You're the person to who I spoke. [Ungrammatical: object territory]
>>- You're the person whom I spoke to. [Formal: objective case concord]
>>- You're the person who I spoke to. [Informal: subject territory]
>>
>I was taught never to use a preposition to end a sentence with.
About which spake Winston Churchill: "This is the sort of nonsense up with
which I will not put!"
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: rick@logos.com
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 10:16:20 +0100
Subject: 1 Peter 1:2
A friend and I are starting a study on 1 Peter. I ran into the following in
verse 2:
kata prognwsin theou patros, which, I promptly (which is amazing in itself)
translated to, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
When I looked up prognwsis in BAGD, the same phrase was translated as,
"according to the predestination of God the Father" and I was confused.
After all, doesn't prognwsis come from the prefix pro and the root gnwsis
and mean "to know before"? I see a definate difference between the english
word "foreknowledge" and the english word "predestination." Without getting
into a major eschatological debate, could anyone tell me if there is
anything in the context that leads one to translate this phrase as
"according to the predestination of God the Father"?
Thanks in advance for the replies.
Rick Brannan
rick@logos.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 10:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: evangelism of Christ (fwd)
Dr. Paul S. Dixon
Pastor, Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 10:37:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
To: leadership@iclnet93.iclnet.org
Cc: reformed group <reformed@listserv.syr.edu>
Subject: evangelism of Christ
My doctoral product "The Evangelism of Christ: a Model for
Evangelism Today" is now available for those using MSWorks (Microsoft
works), Wordperfect (5.0), or neither, i.e. in ASCII format (DOS text).
Access through ftp://members.aol.com/dixonps, then download the
files accordingly (they are suffixed by either MSWorks, Wordperfect, or
txtdos). The text file, of course, lose formatting, but are readable.
Hope this makes the product a lot more available. Let me know if questions.
Dr. Paul S. Dixon
Pastor, Ladd Hill Bible Church
Wilsonville, Oregon
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 13:20:40 -0600
Subject: Re: 1 Peter 1:2
At 3:16 AM 12/15/95, rick@logos.com wrote:
>A friend and I are starting a study on 1 Peter. I ran into the following in
>verse 2:
>
>kata prognwsin theou patros, which, I promptly (which is amazing in itself)
>translated to, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
>
>When I looked up prognwsis in BAGD, the same phrase was translated as,
>"according to the predestination of God the Father" and I was confused.
>
>After all, doesn't prognwsis come from the prefix pro and the root gnwsis
>and mean "to know before"? I see a definate difference between the english
>word "foreknowledge" and the english word "predestination." Without getting
>into a major eschatological debate, could anyone tell me if there is
>anything in the context that leads one to translate this phrase as
>"according to the predestination of God the Father"?
>From classical Greek already is the usage of GIGNWSKW and its cognates in
the sense of "reach a judgment," "determine (a verdict, a sentence)." This
really derives, I believe, from the built-in intellectualist bias of Greek
thinking about morality as a matter of knowledge as a predisposition to act
in a certain way. The Socratic dictum, "virtue is knowledge," is a
classical formulation of a notion already found in Homer, where you find a
good woman described as KEDNA IDUIA = "knowledgeable at good things," and
there are classical usages of GIGNWSKW and EPISTAMAI with infinitives in
the sense of "be able." In view of that history, there's reason enough for
the notion of determination to be associated with the root GNW.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 18:14:22 +0400
Subject: Re: English grammar help
Carl Conrad said;
>If the infinitive is referring back to the subject of the main sentence,
>then its subject will be nominative:
>
>Socrates says, somewhere early in the _Apology_ of Plato:
>
> DIKAIOS OUN EINAI MOI DOKW, "I think then that I am within my
>rights ..."
It seems to me (pun) that the "subject" of this infinitive is in the dative
(reference). Like Paul in Phil.1:21 EMOI GAR TO ZHN XRISTOS . . . "For me
to live is Christ."
>And similarly he says EGW DE AUTOS EU OIDA OUDEN EIDWS, "But I know very
>well that I myself know nothing." Here it is the participle that is in the
>nominative, but the principle is precisely the same. Whereas LATIN while
>require a reflexive pronoun in the accusative even when the speaker is
>talking of himself, Greek will use the nominative in such a situation:
The participle in this one seems to be used to indicate indirect discourse.
Paul usually uses the accusative with the infinitives like in Phil. 1:13
hWSTE TOUS DESMOUS MOU FANEROUS EN XRISTWi GENESQAI EN hOLWi PRAITWRIWi . .
"so that my bonds have become evident (as being) in Christ among the whole
praetorium". .
Calton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 17:41:33 -0700
Subject: Call for mnemonics
To All,
A while back I talked about my desire to start collecting students'
mnemonic devices for inclusion on a Greek CD-ROM for tutoring. I have a
form I made up that can be handed out to students who would like to
participate. If you would like a copy please send me an email and I will
email the form back to you.
I appreciate your help in this. I am convinced that we can almost totally
remove our students' fear of memorizing vocabulary given the power of
multi-media, but the more that are involved in it the better it will be.
I can't pay for their contributions, but we may be able to have a credits
window where their names are listed. How's that for motivation?
Thanks.
Bill Mounce
Teknia Software, Inc.
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #48
****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu