[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #49
b-greek-digest Sunday, 17 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 049
In this issue:
Re: English grammar help
Re: English grammar help
Re: 1 Peter 1:2
Re: English grammar help
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 07:40:59 -0600
Subject: Re: English grammar help
At 8:14 AM 12/15/95, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>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."
These are two very different constructions. The MOI of my citation was NOT
the subject of EINAI but the complement to DOKW;the construction is
literally, "I seem to myself to be (in-the-) right. DIKAIOS is predicate
nom to the subject of DOKW.
>>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". .
The participle IS INDEED used to indicate indirect discourse in my example,
but the principle involved is the same as with infinitives: (a) verbs of
assertion (FASKW and the like) use the infinitive with an accusative if the
subject of the infinitive is other than the subject of the verb of
speaking, but with a nominative if the subject is the same; (b) verbs of
perception (hORAW, AKOUW, GIGNWSKW, OIDA, etc.) use the participle--also
with an accusative if the subject is other than the subject of the verb of
perception, but with an implicit nominative, as in my example above, if the
subject is the same as that of main verb. The example you offer above,
Carlton, from Phil 1:13, is altogether different: it is a result
construction introduced by hWSTE; there is indeed an implicit infinitive
EINAI there; but the result construction is not in indirect discourse with
a verb of assertion. All that I am trying to affirm here is that indirect
discourse constitutes an exception to any supposed rule that the subject of
an infinitive is ALWAYS in the accusative.
At 2:58 AM 12/15/95, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>> It is the accusative. The subject of an infinitival phrase is in
>>the accusative case. always.
>>
>>liz
>
>Amen
I would be less surprised at the vehemence of this apodictic assertion if
it were only being offered as a generalization for Hellenistic Greek or
just for the New Testament, but it appears to be offered without any
qualification whatsoever. I think I could find more examples of the
nominative in the NT,but this one seems to be sufficiently succinct:
Rom 1:22 ... FASKONTES EINAI SOFOI, EMWRANQHSAN ...
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: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 08:25:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: English grammar help
On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Carlton Winbery wrote:
> 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."
...
It seems to me (sorry) that C.C.'s point is that DIKAIOS is
nominative. I don't see how MOI could be seen as the "subject"
of the infinitive; and if it were, it would have a dative complement,
would it not, rather than nominative?. A crib trans. will show how I
construe:
I seem to myself to be DIKAIOS.
- --Not to shut off further discussion by other interested parties,
but I will at this point express my thanks to all who so
generously stepped in to help my out of my apoplexity on this
question. Since it was my own avowed ignorance that started
things off, I will not now presume to give a final determinatio,
but if anyone cares, the case seems to me settled in favor of
"who." With regard to the question of the English grammar
involved, Stephen Carlson's post (drawing on Quick's grammar)
seems definitive.
As for the practical question of what to do at this point in
the ms. I am editing, a "quasi-professional linguist" on the list
(whom I will not name, since the "quasi" indicates to me that
Philip prefers to obscure his credentials, he having in fact
been precisely a professional linguist before redescending into
the mire of graduate studies) offered the advice that where the
grammar is doubtful, the course of wisdom is to circumlocute.
I heartily agree. Whether I put "who" or "whom" in the ms.
some readers will think it is wrong. So I put "that," which
is every copy editor's favorite relative pronoun anyway. The
touch of impersonality is acceptable since the referent could
be seen as an office rather than a person per se.
One parting remark, which I hope will not give anyone the final
evidence they need to conclude that I am an idiot: although I
have used the term myself as a teaching tool and will no doubt
continue to do so whenever I teach a language course again, I
have serious abiding doubts about the existence of such a
creature as a "subject of the infinitive"; hence I have doubts
about absolute rules as to what case such a creature would have
to be in. I should say at once, in case it isn't already
perfectly obvious, that I claim no expertise in theoretical
grammar, having been interested (apart from fascinating but
brief forays into Cartesian grammar and transformational
grammar in a college linguistics course) only in the discovery of
such "rules" as facilitate language learning and teaching and
explication de textes; and I have used to great advantage
a number of grammar books that DO use this term, including
Prof. W.'s co-authored work. But even if we are to use the
term, I see no example of such in the problem sentence I
quoted in my first post. It appears to me that the disagreement
on the whole question boils down to the question whether we
must either find or mentally add such a "subject"--which then
has to be accusative, so that "whom" is then required as its
complement.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 08:57:06 -0800
Subject: Re: 1 Peter 1:2
You 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"?
>
>Thanks in advance for the replies.
>
>Rick Brannan
>rick@logos.com
>
PROGNWSIS (and the verb form PROGINWSKW) are words which seem to have a
broad range of possible meanings. Look at the other appearances in the NT.
Acts 2:23: THi hWRISMENHi BOULHi KAI PROGNWSEI TOU QEOU,
(NIV): This man was handed over to you "by God's set purpose and
foreknowledge"
Acts 26:5 PROGINWSKONTES ME ANWQEN...
(the Jews) (from the start, early childhood).
(NIV) They ^ have know me for a long time ^.
2 Pet 3:17 HUMEIS OUN, AGAPHTOI, PROGINWSKONTES FULASSESQE..
(NIV) Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your
guard...
I Pet 1:20 PROEGNWSMENOU MEN PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU FANERWQENTOS DE
EP'ESXATOU TWN XRONWN DI'hUMAS.
(NIV) He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in
these last times for your sake.
Rom 8:29 hOTI hOUS PROEGNW, KAI PROWRISEN SUMMORFOUS THS EIKONOS TOU hUIOU.
(NIV) For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the
likeness of his Son...
Rom 11:2 OUK APWSATO hO QEOS TON LAON AUTOU hON PROEGNW.
(NIV) God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.
In my antique Wigram's, definitions of PROGINWSKW range from: "to be
previously acquainted with" all the way to "to determine on beforehand" or
"to appoint as the subjects of future priveleges"
and for PROGNWSIS: "foreknowledge, prescience" to "purpose".
Regarding BAGD, in the two instances where PROGNWSIS appears, they might
comfortably insert their definition. I think, however, considering the
entire range of possible meanings, that "predestinate" is precariously
close to the edge.
Ellen Adams
Housewife and mom.
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 11:34:26 +0400
Subject: Re: English grammar help
Carl Conrad answered;
>At 2:58 AM 12/15/95, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>>> It is the accusative. The subject of an infinitival phrase is in
>>>the accusative case. always.
>>>
>>>liz
>>
>>Amen
>
>I would be less surprised at the vehemence of this apodictic assertion if
>it were only being offered as a generalization for Hellenistic Greek or
>just for the New Testament, but it appears to be offered without any
>qualification whatsoever. I think I could find more examples of the
>nominative in the NT,but this one seems to be sufficiently succinct:
>
> Rom 1:22 ... FASKONTES EINAI SOFOI, EMWRANQHSAN ...
I took it that Ellen was talking of English. This reveals my ancient
education in English from Mrs. Townsley and Tannehill. I am well aware of
the variety in the New Testament. But I must say that your selection of
Rom. 1:22 was an excellent retort.
Concerning the use of such expressions as "subject of the infinitive,"
Mrs. Townsley never liked that either. She called an objective used for
reference, a term that carries over into the Syntax I helped so long ago.
Even the use of the idea of "rules" in grammar, I agree, is loose. In
reality we are talking of our observations as to what is used. Mark,
especially, seems not to have known some of our "rules."
Calton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #49
****************************
** 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