From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Sat Feb 24 1996 - 06:36:51 EST
Gary Shogren wrote;
>You're right in putting the PASHS with the AKATHARIAS, but a simple
>anarthrous attributive position would explain it as "all uncleanness."
PASHS modifies AKAQARIAS and agrees with it in case, gender, and number. So
the statement which follows must be a slip.
>Yeah, I think you gave a good answer, although PASHS is best viewed as
>attributive to ERGASIAN.
PASHS can't be attributive to ERGASIAN since it is acc. fem. sing. and
PASHS is gen. fem. sing.
>ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
>action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
>genitive.
It is clear that AKAQARSIAS cannot be subjective genitive since those who
are practicing (ERGASIAN) uncleanness are the ones who have given
themselves over to wantonness. It is not the uncleanness that is doing it
but the people about whom Paul is speaking. The objective genitive would
be the object of the action implied by the noun (or noun substitute) which
the word in the genitive modifies. The subjective genitive on the other
hand would have to denote the agent of the action implied by the noun that
it modifies. Take ERGASIAN and make it into a verb. AKAQARSIAS could be
the object of such a verb but not the subject of it.
Grace,
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT