From: Carlton L. Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Wed Jul 10 1996 - 11:12:05 EDT
Mike Phillips wrote;
> I'm working in John 14 and have a few 'novice' questions, if anyone
>would care to stoop in an accomodating fashion <g>. In v. 15, to begin with, I
>find <greek>TAS ENTOLAS TAS EMAS</>, which I am rendering (for lack of a better
>idea) simply as 'my commandments,' yet the structure differs markedly from v.
>21, <greek>TAS ENTOLAS MOU</> which is so clearly 'my commandments,' that I
>wonder what measure of ignorance is preventing me from gathering the
>distinction (emphasis?). Is <greek> TAS EMAS</> something else (that I can't
>locate) other than a pronoun in acc. case agreeing with <greek>TAS ENTOLAS</>?
>Is it a bifurcate direct object (sorry, I don't know the technical term, but on
>a diagram you would have two parallel direct objects, the commandments and 'the
>ones of mine?' Ok, I have probably sufficiently addressed the points of my
>confusion here.
MOU is the genitive singular of the pronoun EGW used as a genitive of
possesion. Hence you are correct to translate it "my commandments." EMAS
is the possesive pronoun (probably should be called a possesive adjective).
To find it in the lexicon look up EMOS -H -ON. It is declined in all
genders using first and second declension endings and in singular and
plural so that like an adjective it can modify plural nouns. It is always
translated "my" so you are correct to translate it "my commandments" with
no distinction from the use of the possesive genitive of the first personal
pronoun. It is simply a matter of style.
> How about spelling concerns: v. 27, <greek>DEILIATW</>. Where does
>the TAU come from? BAG has (p. 173) <greek>DELIAW</> and specifically cites
>this verse, but doesn't give the variant spelling. Archaic form? Different
>dialect?
The verb is DEILIAW. The form in vs. 27 is the present imperative 3rd
singular. The TW is the imperative ending. "Let not your heart be
troubled (TARASSESQW 3rd sing mid form imperative) neither let it be
afraid."
>Also v. 31 (and here I fear I am just plain foolish for risking another query,
>being fairly confident I have already exposed my ignorance suficiently) <greek>
>POIW</>. Why would a pres. act. ind. 1st sing. form vary from the lexical form
><greek>POIEW</>?
POIEW is a contract verb in the first principle part (present and imperfect
tenses). It is given in the lexicon in the uncontracted form so that you
can know whether it is EW, AW, or OW contract. When it appears in the text
in the present or imperfect the vowel contracts with the ending leaving the
circumflex accent on the ultima, thus POIW= instead of POIE/W.
Carlton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
winbrow@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT