From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 13 1999 - 09:50:11 EDT
At 7:05 AM -0500 10/13/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:
>To: Carl W. Conrad,
>
>SCM: << KAI HN hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR QAUMAZONTES (Luke 2:33). Here we
>have a compound subject with a single verb and a plural participle! >>
>
>CWC: << Good example, although I don't really think this is quite the same
>thing; it IS a matter of agreement, of course, but it involves the
>periphrastic imperfect which is more common in Koine than earlier; of
>course one might expect HSAN ... QAUMAZONTES with more careful writing, but
>this is pretty clearly an instance of "constructio ad sensum," which is
>hardly a real grammatical category in its own right--rather a way of
>referring to a sort of grammatical anacoluthon wherein the speaker/writer
>starts with one conception of the construction and changes halfway through
>to a different conception of it. >>
>
>That makes sense to me. I almost didn't include the example of Lk 2:33 in
>my message, for it doesn't seem to be the same as the other examples. Smyth
>even suggests that HN was originally plural, but I don't know if one could
>assume that Luke knew that.
>
>SCM: << So, while your interpretation of Jude 2 as an ellipsis is
>reasonable enough, I see nothing wrong with just assuming that it is a
>Pindaric construction. What do you think? >>
>
>CWC: << Quite honestly, I think it's "six of one and half a dozen of the
>other"; I'd see the "Pindaric" construction as essentially elliptical; ... >>
>
>But which is it, six or a half a dozen? <g> FWIW ... I felt that I
>presented two examples (Mt 5:18 & 1 Cor 15:50) which couldn't be explaned
>as an ellipsis.
For you (MEN) it's six, for me (DE) it's half a dozen. ;-)
hEWS AN PARELQHi hO OURANOS KAI hH GH (Mt 5:18).
I have no difficulty reading this as equivalent to hEWS AN PARELQHi hO
OURANOS KAI PARELQHi hH GH, nor have I any difficulty reading
hOTI SARX KAI hAIMA BASILEIAN QEOU KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI (1 Cor 15:50).
as hOTI SARX OU DUNATAI BASILEAN QEOU KLHRONOMHSAI KAI hAIMA BASILEAN QEOU
KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI ---
However, I think one might just as well argue that hO OURANOS KAI hH GH in
the one verse and SARX KAI hAIMA in the second verse each constitute a
unified expression--a hendiadys--and for that reason these are not to be
understood as violations of the principle of agreement. I note that Smyth
limits "Pindaric construction" pretty much to poetry and to 3rd singular
forms of EIMI and GINOMAI. I think it's questionable whether this sort of
poetic convention impacts upon these particular Koine instances.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:42 EDT