From: Joe A. Friberg (JoeFriberg@email.msn.com)
Date: Thu Dec 09 1999 - 12:00:51 EST
As with many questions that arise in Greek (or English...) grammar, this is
an issue that is, IMO, greatly elucidated by delineating the distinction
between form and function, and by further delineating types of
function/meaning that can be conveyed by a single form-in-context. Not
having done a study specifically on GAR, the following are tentative
comments based especially on general principles.
Types of function/meaning:
SYNTACTICAL FUNCTION
GAR should be classified as a coordinating conjunction based on syntactic
criteria, and the term 'coordinating' should be limited to syntactic
description. Criteria for differentiating coordinating vs. subordinating
conjunctions include:
Coordinating conjunctions:
1. connect structurally identical or similar constituents (2 Indicative
clauses, paragraphs, etc.)
2. do not permit the transposition of the clause apparently 'headed' by the
conjunction to a different position with respect to the other clause. That
is, if the original structure is 'a + b', then '+b, a' is ungrammatical.
(This is the point Kimmo Huovila has already made, and I will try to make
again.) The reason is that the conjuction '+' is coordinating the 2
constituents rather than embedding 'b' inside of 'a' as an element of 'a'.
'+' simply stands structurally *between* the 2 constituents, each with their
own comparable tree structure, and neither a part of the other.
Syntactically there is complete symmetry between the 2 elements, even though
phonologically the conjuction '+' may be grouped together with the second
element: i.e., we may put a comma before 'and' or GAR but not after them;
other phonological phenomena may take place, but I am speaking now under the
heading 'syntax', so I will get back on track.
(Note: 'independence' is *not* an identifying criterion because a conjuction
may *coordinate* 2 *subordinate* clauses, neither of which is independent.
Further, independence properly determined by considering the clause
*without* the conjunction tagging along, not with it.)
Subordinating conjunctions:
1. connect constituents which *may* be structurally dissimilar (subjunctive
vs. indicative clause; but in a language like English, this indicator has
largely vanished).
2. permit the transposition of the clause 'headed' by the conjunction to a
different position with respect to the other clause: a +b can be rewritten
+b, a, or perhaps even interjected within the other clause: "Mary, since she
was going to the store anyway, picked up a newspaper." This criterion is
especially effective at showing that the conjunction governs the clause to
which it is attached: it actually forms a constituent together with the
subordinated clause, and this joint constituent headed by the conjunction is
actually embeded within the structure of the superordinate clause, even if
it simply follows (a + b) or precedes (+b, a) the rest of the clause.
LOGICAL-SEMANTIC FUNCTION:
Logical connections have a certain structure to them, with support
(protasis/cause) given for some conclusion (apodosis/effect). Within the
realm of logic, we generally conclude that the conclusion is ultimately most
important, the 'bottom-line'. Based on this perception of logic, the
conclusion is naturally more prominent, and this is why, I believe, there is
a tendency to want to label GAR as a subordinating conjunction: because it
subordinates within the realm of ideas.
In fact, many, or perhaps most, conjunctions follow this pattern of logical
prominence, such that logical subordination is also marked by syntactic
subordination: 'since', 'because', hOTI, etc.; but not GAR, 'for', etc.
Logical structure should be analyzed further into categories. Sample
categories follow, with the logically prominent element indicated with all
caps:
condition-CONSEQUENCE
concession-CONTRAEXPECTATION
reason-RESULT (direct logical cause-effect)
means-END
purpose-MEANS (prominence in this one is debatable!)
grounds-HEAD
(Now that last one is very generic, and appears to be a kind of catch-all!
It includes things that are: *not* direct logical causation; looser
relation; probably could be broken up many times over; grounds can be
evidential, motivational,..., HEAD can be a conclusion, statement,
exhortation, etc....)
(These particular categories are taken from an old (1983)
Semantic Structure Analysis produced by Summer Institute of Linguistics, and
are discussed in Beekman and Callow _Translating the Word of God_; I am
aware that they have worked on some better names, etc.; I have seen and
worked with some better categorizations, but cannot get to my sources right
now. It might also be noted that Aristotle developed a 4-way categrization
of causation, which might be of interest for comparison.)
Now that the theory has been stated rather neatly; here goes the
messy part: categorization of examples of GAR, KAQWS (and some English
examples that have been given) under these logical categories! From these
examples, it appears that GAR consistently provides a loose Grounds for a
prior statement: Here's some suggestions:
English:
> "Jack went to bed early, 'for' he was very tired."
(1) Because Jack was tired, he went to bed.
Head-Motivational Grounds
- since volition is involved (presumably!), this is not reason-result.
> "Gerald read the book 'because' I recommended it."
(2) Because I recommended the book, Gerald read it.
(2) Gerald read the book, for I recommended it.
Head-Motivational Grounds
- again, there is volition
Rom 1.8-9
Head Etiquette: I thank God...for you all....
Evidential Grounds: For God...is my witness (how unceasingly I make mention
of you).
- apparent reason for using GAR is to call God as a witness to the initial
assertion
Rom 1.10-11
Head Request: ...making request, (if perhaps...I may...come to you).
Purposive(?) Grounds: For I long to see you (in order to impart some gift).
- complex components!:
- the Grounds contain a Means (to see)-purpose (impart gift) construction
- the Head contains Speech (request)-Content (to come to you)
- the Means (to see) and Content (to come to you) in these two components
are coreferrential; hence the 'request' is ultimately driven by the purpose
'to impart gift', which gives rise to my designation as 'purposive grounds'.
It is not direct Means-Purpose because there a more complex mediated
relation is involved.
Rom 1.15-16
Head Assertion: ...I am eager to preach in Rome
Motivational Grounds: For I am not ashamed of the gospel....
- while the Head is part of a larger constituent, this juncture seems to
mark the break between the personal introduction and the theological core,
both of which are motivated by Paul's zeal for the gospel. This GAR may be
functioning at multiple parallel levels. This also appears to be one of the
looser connections among these examples.
Rom 1.16
Head Assertion: I am not ashamed of the gosepl,
Motivational Grounds: for it is the power of God (for salvation to all who
believe...)
Rom 1.16-17
Head Conclusion: it is the power of God (for salvation to all who
believe...)
Evidential Grounds: For in it God's righteousness is revealed from
faith....
- the most direct logical connection is found between 'in it God's
righteousness is revealed from faith' (means) and 'salvation to all who
believe' (end), but the GAR construction relates higher level units, giving
evidence of why/how the gospel is the power of God. Alternatively, or in
addition, 1.17 can be taken as Motivational Grounds for 1.16a 'I am not
ashamed of the gospel'. This latter connection is supported by the parallel
w/ 1.18 (see below).
Rom 1.17
Result: in it God's righteousness is revealed from faith....
Reason: as/KAQWS it is written, "But the righteous shall live by faith."
- This might be better classified as: Head Conclusion-Evidential Grounds;
however, I am supposing that Paul is drawing on the quote from scripture in
a prophetic sense--that the gospel's salvation through faith is a
fulfillment of prophecy. Maybe, maybe not--it's open for discussion! In
either case, the logical connection is more direct than most of the other
connections (exception might be the immediately preceding example). The
closer connection calls for KAQWS, as well as the fact that no additional
discussion ensues.
Rom 1.18
Head Assertion: ?? 1.14/15?, 1.16?
Motivational(?) Grounds: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness...
- Note the parallelism between 1.17 and 1.18, in addition to the lack of any
obvious logical connection between 1.17 and 1.18, forces us to look to
higher discourse levels to seek the coordinated construction.
Finally, there is another level at which conjunctions function:
DISCOURSE FUNCTION:
Perhaps the most important role of conjunctions is that they help structure
the overall discourse, not merely provide individual logical relationship.
Above, it has been noted that frequently the Semantic prominence and
Syntactic prominence coincide, but not always. This *skewing* between
natural Semantic prominence and *marked* Syntactic prominence is most likely
to arise out of a difference in desired prominence at the discourse level.
That is, the Syntactic skewing is an indicator of discourse prominence.
Thus GAR may introduce a Grounds clause, which is semantically of lower
prominence than the Head clause which it logically supports, but the fact
that GAR is a coordinating conjunction rather than subordinating
(syntactically) permits the speaker/author to place greater prominence on
the Grounds than would logically be called for. For example, I may want to
emphasize *why* I was late over the fact that I was late!
For the Rom 1 exs. considered above, Paul's concern is to move from formal
greetings, to his care for the Romans and desired ministry to them, to his
exposition of theology. He is moving to the body of his letter, so the GARs
seem to be used to move on to the more prominent elements of his
communication. In each case, the Grounds clause introduces a subject for
additional discussion/elaboration, not a simple statement of support for the
previous clause (contra the KAQWS clause).
Enough for now! Thoughts, anyone?
God Bless!
Joe A. Friberg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Luper" <mluper@emmanuel-college.edu>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 3:17 PM
Subject: Is GAR a coordinating or subordinating conjunction?
> I am working through Romans for a class I am teaching next semester. I
have
> come across an issue that has frequently created questions in my mind and
I
> thought I would throw it out to those on the list in the hopes that I
might
> gain some clarity.
>
> In many of the Greek Grammars that I have used over the years, GAR is
> presented as a "coordinating conjunction" which is defined as one that
> connects units of equal structure, as opposed to other conjunctions such
as
> hINA that are classified as "subordinating conjunctions" which are defined
> as conjunctions that connect dependent clauses to main clauses. Richard
> Young, in his Grammar, does address the problem of GAR functioning in both
> roles as a coordinating conjunction "to link independent units" and as a
> subordinating conjunction "to introduce dependent clauses." His brief
> explanation notwithstanding (pp. 182), it seems to me that often the
> determination of a clause in which GAR is used as being dependent or
> independent is a matter of opinion on how dependent or independent one
> thinks the following thought actually is, rather than on strict
grammatical
> rules or indicators in the text.
>
> Let me illustrate the point I am trying to make. In Rom. 1:16-17 there are
> three uses of GAR (typically understood to be used as coordinating
> conjunctions) and one use of KATHWS (understood to be a subordinating
> conjunction). How is one to know that in Paul's mind the three clauses
> introduced by GAR are any more independent than the clause introduced by
> KATHWS? Consider the three statements introduced by GAR:
> "For (GAR) I am not ashamed of the gospel"
> "For (GAR) it is the power of God for salvation"
> "For (GAR) in it the righteousness of God is revealed"
>
> These statements seem every bit as dependent on something written
previously
> as the statement
> "as (KATHWS) it is written"
>
> Thinking that a better grasp of English grammar on this matter might shed
> some light, I went back to a basic English Grammar book and found that
"for"
> was understood to be a coordinating conjunction and was used in the
> following sentence:
> "Jack went to bed early, 'for' he was very tired."
>
> Then, I looked up subordinating conjunctions and found the following
> sentence:
> "Gerald read the book 'because' I recommended it."
>
> In both of these sentences it would appear that "for" and "because" are
> serving the same function, to introduce a cause or reason, and yet they
are
> classified differently.
>
> Perhaps my problem with GAR goes back to a faulty training in English
> grammar, but if someone could shed some light on this matter I would
> appreciate it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Luper
> Emmanuel College
> http://www.emmanuel-college.edu/scm
--- 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