From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Fri Dec 12 1997 - 04:17:58 EST
Daniel Riano wrote:
<<<<<<Thanks to Rolf Furuli for his detailed and very interesting posting. I
would like to do one correction and a suggestion.
Rolf Furuli wrote:
>(Daniel`s suggestion that only TO PNEUMA is qualified by hUMWN is
>grammatically possible but is communicatively so strange that grammatical
>precedents must be produced to accept it.).
I agree completely and I think I am the only Daniel who wrote about it (my
apologies if I am mistaken in that): Only that I never wrote "that only TO
PNEUMA is qualified by hUMWN". What I wrote is:
I have another suggestion to do: I believe that *o(lo/klhron* is
predicative, and almost certainly it is *not* a substantive here, as Carl
W. Conrad noted; but it must not be taken all the three nouns, as TDNT
says, but only with *to\ pneu=ma*, and *h( yuch\ kai\ to\ sw=ma* are
adverbially modified by *a)me/mptws*. Then we have not only another case of
chiasmus, but also an ellegant "variatio" in the adverbial-predicative
construction: an adjective with the first member, a real adverb with the
second and third. I think this is the sense of the Nova Vulgata
translation.>>>>
Dear Daniel,
I am sorry I wrote hUMWN instead of hOLOKLHRON, thus misrepresenting your
view. Thank you for clearing this up. I like your way of doing an analysis;
it is logical and shows a very good linguistic insight.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:37 EDT