From: Jim West (jwest@highland.net)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 20:41:12 EST
At 04:21 PM 1/20/98 +0000, you wrote:
> I prefer the diacriticals because without them sometimes
>two words which have different meanings appear to be identical (e.g.,
>the definite article hO and the neuter nominative/accusative relative
>pronoun hO -- the difference being the presence of the acute accent
>in the latter). Even though such differences wouldn't seriously
>affect one's understanding of a given text if one (as you say) is
>familiar with the inner workings of the language, nevertheless, I
>think the presence of the diacriticals makes them easier to spot.
>
>Sola Gratia,
>
>Jeremy
Yes- but thats the fun of it!! For instance, at John 2 does the text say
<gk> ho ti</gk> or <gk>hoti</gk> (v. 5)? Many are the examples of a text
rendered differently if word division takes place differently.
In fact the choice of where words divide is itself an editorial decision.
Best,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT