From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 21 2000 - 18:05:10 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:30 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[b-greek] Re: Imperative in Rom
6:12</title></head><body>
<div>At 11:25 AM -0600 6/21/00, Stevens, Charles C wrote:</div>
<div>>One of the aspects of first- and third-person imperatives
that ISTM can't<br>
>adequately be expressed is the issue of "degree of
involvement", for want of<br>
>a better phrase. <br>
><br>
>"Let him <infinitive>" implies, in English, the
involvement of the target<br>
>audience; this is a "three-entity" construction (the
speaker; the audience,<br>
>who is being involved by the use of "let"; and the
target person who is<br>
>supposed to be carrying out <infinitive>). <br>
><br>
>Likewise, "Let me <infinitive>" invites the
audience into the process of<br>
>ensuring that the action takes place. <br>
><br>
>"I must <infinitive>" is an observation, not a
command; it also involves the<br>
>speaker in two roles, as speaker and as performer of the desired
action; it</div>
<div>>is inherently reflexive. <br>
</div>
<div>Charles, I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe it
is true; I think your reasoning is somewhat akin to the fallacy of
deriving the meaning of a word from its etymology rather than from
its usage. I don't think an ordinary English-speaker has any
conception of offering an addressee the option to participate in the
decision making about the action involved: "Let's go home right
now!" is not the same as "Shall we go home at once?"
or "Will you consent that we should go home at once?" I
think it has authority. Similarly the third-person usage, "let
him/her ... " or "let them ... " is authoritative. And
the same idiomatic phrase is used in German. I recently had occasion
to review John Kennedy's Berlin Wall speech of June 26, 1963 as a
text for Latin prose composition; while on the whole it is not an
impressive speech, no one who heard it by TV or newsreel (or in
person?) can forget the power of the third-person imperative in the
opening paragraph which became a response repeated in German by the
Berliners, so loudly that Kennedy, who did not speak German, was
himself using it in the final line:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font color="#000000">"Two thousand years ago, the proudest
boast was<i> "civis Romanus sum!"</i> Today in the world of
freedom, the proudest boast is<i> "Ich bin ein
Berliner!"</i></font><font color="#367B0D"><br>
</font><font color="#000000">There are many people in the world who
really don't understand--or say they don't--what is the greatest
issue between the free world and Communist world. Let them come to
Berlin!There are some who say that "communism is the wave of the
future." Let them come to Berlin! And there are some who say in
Europe and elsewhere, "we can work with the Communists."
Let them come to Berlin!</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">And there are even a few who say
"yes, that it's true, that communism is an evil system, but it
permits us to make economic progress."<i> Lass' sie nach Berlin
en kommen!</i> Let them come to Berlin!"</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">The German "lass(e) is no more an
invitation to participate than is English "let." I really
think this is a matter of standard usage, just as surely as 'se habla
espaņol' doesn't really MEAN "Spanish speaks itself" but
rather "Spanish gets spoken."</font> It is a matter of a
phrase of a certain form having taken on a function and conveying a
sense.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>ISTM that the "pure" first- and third-person
imperative forms would not<br>
>contain any implication of that sort of multiple-party or
reflexive<br>
>involvement. Moreover, would not that be the essence of the
semantic<br>
>distinction between e.g. AFES + subjunctive and the pure
imperative forms in</div>
<div>>first and third person, at least when both were in common
use?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Again, in this instance I don't really think there is a semantic
distinction between Koine AFES + subj. (or + subj. w/ infin.) and a
hortatory subjunctive or third person imperative. Consider:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Mt 7:4 H PWS EREIS TWi ADELFWi SOU: AFES EKBALW TO KARFOS EK TOU
OFQALMOU SOU ...: Are we to suppose that Jesus means a person
asks his brother's permission to rid the eye of the speck?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>or Mt 27:49 hOI DE LOIPOI ELEGON: AFES IDWMEN EI ERCETAI HLIAS
SWSWN AUTON; Are we to suppose that consent is here being sought for
waiting to see if Elijah will come to save Jesus?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>or Mt 8:22 hO DE IHSOUS LEGEI AUTWi: AKOLOUQEI MOI KAI AFES TOUS
NEKROUS QAYAI TOUS hEAUTWN NEKROUS: surely "the dead" are
not being offered participation in the decision "to bury their
own dead." This is what the 3d person imperative has become in
the language of the street, even if an orator had expressed the sense
with QAYATWSAN (or QAYANTWN) hOI NEKROI TOUS hEAUTWN NEKROUS--and I
suspect that the orator might be embarrassed at using AFES but I
don't think there's an ounce of semantic difference.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>