From: Paul Zellmer (zellmer@digitelone.com)
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 08:56:09 EST
Kimmo Huovila wrote in part:
> The same semantic relationship of causality may be expressed using two
> different syntactic means (co-ordination and subordination).
>
> I fail to see how these counter-examples would be relevant. In all
these
> examples with for, the clause giving the reason follows the other
> clause. The order is interchangable with because, not with for. That
> would support the idea that for connects two independent clauses,
> whereas because begins a clause that is subordinate. In English (and
> Greek, for that matter) a constituent may be topicalized by giving it
> the initial position. Thus the moving of the entire clause to an
initial
> position is easy to explain on the basis of it being a constituent of
> the matrix clause. However, the argument does not apply to the for
> clauses, for in these cases the order is not interchangable.
Kimmo,
Just as a reminder to those reading this, the original examples were:
Jack went to bed early, for he was very tired,
and,
Gerald read the book because I recommended it.
You had then put forth:
> > > There is a difference with the English clauses. Try changing the
order
> > > of clauses:
> > > (1) *For Jack was very tired, he went to bed early.
> > > (2) Because I recommended the book, Gerald read it.
> > >
> > > In the latter case the reason clause may be taken as a constituent
of
> > > the main clause.
> >
And Daniel Christiansen responded:
> > IMO, this does not address the problem, even in English, since
we may also write
> >
> > (1) Because Jack was tired, he went to bed.
> > (2) Gerald read the book, for I recommended it.
> >
> > I'll side with Carlton on this one. The question is not whether
an English
> > translation of GAR can be coord. or subord., but whether GAR was
understood by
> > everday koine readers and speakers as being one or the other, and
under which
> > circumstances.
Actually, Kimmo, your original test of whether the "for" clause was
independent or subordinant is invalid simply because the English word
must be post-positive, although colloquial usage allows the phrase or
clause it follows to be implied only. The only time it can precede its
attached clause is in poetic or highly figurative prose, and then, as
near as I can recall, it never carries the sense of cause. Your
illustration is the rough equivalent of putting "GAR" at the beginning
of a Greek clause and finding that it is an invalid form. It is invalid
because of the rules attached to that word, not because of any supposed
test of dependence or independence.
The test that an English speaker would use to determine dependence or
independence would be to say the clause in isolation and decide if it
can stand on its own. And, although it is drilled into our heads that
formal writing never includes sentences beginning with "and" or "but,"
the examination of appropriateness of these sentences allow these type
clauses to be deemed independent. But clauses starting with "for" or
"because" *are* dependent, because there is a clear sense of something
being missing when these clauses are examined in isolation. IOW, "and
he was very tired" is independent, but "for he was very tired" is
dependent. If this dependent clause is placed at the beginning of the
sentence in the normal (non-image laden) environment, the word "for"
must be replaced with "because" or "so that" or another word/phrase
which describes the use of the word.
I wish your proposed test would have worked, because it would have given
a more objective way for people who are not native English speakers to
determine dependence or independence. But, in this case, your test
doesn't hold true.
My thots on what you wrote,
Paul
--- 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 - 15:40:48 EDT