Re: John 16:15: EMA ESTIN -- why accusative?

From: Jonathan Robie (74144.2360@compuserve.com)
Date: Wed Aug 21 1996 - 17:33:24 EDT

Next message: Ron Henzel: "John 8:58 & scholarly sources"
Previous message: DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu: "John 16:15: EMA ESTIN -- why accusative?"
Maybe in reply to: DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu: "John 16:15: EMA ESTIN -- why accusative?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Conrad, Don, Carlton, Paul,

Thanks for the corrections, it makes a lot more sense now that
I'm reading it correctly! Incidentally, Perschbacher's Analytical
Lexicon lists John 10:14 as an example of the two uses of EMA:

EGW EIMI hO POIMHN hO KALOS,
KAI GINWSKW TA EMA (acc. plural of EMOS)
KAI GINWSKOUSI ME TA EMA (nom. plural of EMOS)

I'll tape that to my synapses so I'll remember it next time.

Jonathan

Next message: Ron Henzel: "John 8:58 & scholarly sources"
Previous message: DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu: "John 16:15: EMA ESTIN -- why accusative?"
Maybe in reply to: DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu: "John 16:15: EMA ESTIN -- why accusative?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT