From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Feb 29 2000 - 01:23:40 EST
<x-charset ISO-8859-1>Perhaps I should clarify this question a bit. Look at Col. 1:3-4ff. In
verse 4 AKOUSANTES . . . could be understood as stating a prior
circumstance or condition limiting the finite verb EUXARISTOUMEN in
verse 3.
It seems to me that the salience of AKOUSANTES is lower than
EUXARISTOUMEN. It also seems that AKOUSANTES . . . could have been
placed before EUXARISTOUMEN without having any appreciable effect on its
salience or semantic function. The change of order would have rhetorical
side effects but AKOUSANTES . . . would still have the same semantic
function and I will also risk saying it would have the same salience.
This is not a great counter example since it isn't part of a Gospel
narrative which is the subject of Longacre's article. Can someone come
up with an example like this from the Gospels or Acts?
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062---------- >From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net> >To: Biblical Greek <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu> >Subject: Participial Salience - Longacre >Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000, 1:47 PM >
> R. E. Longacre* states that the salience of a preposed participle > (before the finite verb) is relative to the finite verb it is associated > with and less than that verb (see his chart on page 179). This means > that a preposed participle dependent on a finite verb in the imperfect > will have less salience than preposed participles dependent on finite > verbs in the aorist or historical present. > > Longacre also states (p, 177) that a postposed participle (after the > finite verb) "is of the same semantic rank as the verb it follows; that > is, it is consecutive on the preceding main verb and continues its > function." > > My question is about postposed participles. It seems that Longacre's > scheme makes the postposed participle a completely different animal from > the preposed participle. In other words, he seems to be saying that the > semantic and syntactic function of the participle is dependent on word > order. Does this wash? Can we say without qualification that the > position of the participle relative to its finite verb determines its > semantic and syntactic function in the discourse? > > I am particularly interested in seeing examples where the postposed > participle seems to function like a preposed participle. In other words > I am looking for counter examples to help clarify Longacre's salience > scheme. > > > * Page 177ff, Porter, Stanley E. & Jeffrey T. Reed „Discourse Analysis > and the New Testament, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. >
--- 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
</x-charset>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:01 EDT