From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2001 - 01:30:10 EST
On 1/1/01 9:23 PM, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
> [Steven]
> The neuter article is sometimes used to substantivize clauses, statements,
> and quotations (cf. Mt 19.18; Mk 9.23; Rm 8.26; 13.9; Ep 4.9; Hb 12.27).
>
> [Moon]
> 1)
> Is it ungrammatical to omit the article in these examples? Wouldn't there be
> similar sentences that do not require the article to make sense?
I'm not sure why the answers to these questions would be relevant to the
discussion at hand. There may be various ways to express any given thought
in Greek (or any other language for that matter). What is at issue here is a
specific usage of the neuter article.
> To me, the article in front of a clause not only substantivizes the
> clause but also makes it definite. The writer uses definite expressions
> when the writer believes the reader would know what they refer to,
> based on the discourse situation, the situation being constructed by the
> text, or based on the social/historical situation, which is independent of
> text. In the former case, the definite expressions are said to be
> anaphoric, and in the latter case, they are said to be deitic.
I think we may just be using terminology differently. I would say that,
*broadly speaking*, the article is anaphoric in both cases, since it points
to something introduced earlier and therefore previously known (cf. Wallace,
p. 218). The anaphoric use of the article is deictic by its very nature,
since it points back to something the hearer/reader is familiar with, for
whatever reason. I think it would be counterproductive to wrangle over the
terminology used if we are talking about the same thing.
> 2)
> [Steven]
> When so used it is often anaphoric. I think it is anaphoric in Lk 9.46,
> referring back to DIALOGISMOS (though, because it is neuter, in a loose
> way).
>
> [Moon]
> The definite clause in Lk 9.46 seems to be deitic; The question of which
> of them would be greatest seems to be the question that the
> reader would be ready to believe have occurred among the disciples,
> who are only human.
Yes, it is deictic (syntactically speaking) if you mean it is anaphoric,
pointing back to DIALOGISMOS, upon which it is dependent. And whether or not
the reader would have been ready to believe this question to have occurred
among the disciples is impossible to know. I fail to see how the fact that
the disciples are human would prepare the reader to expect that very
question ("*the* question," as you say above).
> Moreover, the text in question has not introduced anything that has to do with
> this question.
When I said it was anaphoric, I didn't at all mean that the text *had*
introduced anything that has to do with this question. By anaphoric I meant
that it pointed back to the word DIALOGISMOS, to which any reader would
naturally connect it epexegetically in the context.
> For that matter, the definite clauses in all the examples given by Steven seem
> to be deitic.
First of all, I want to point out that I said this use of the article was
*often* anaphoric. I realize it is not always so. But I disagree that none
of the above examples are anaphoric. I think if you look at several of the
above texts you will see that they very clearly point back to something in
the context. In Mt 19.18 TO points back to TAS ENTOLAS (v. 17) and POIAS (v.
18). He is referring to a specific body of commandments already alluded to
in the context. In Mk 9.23 the TO in TO EI DUNHi points back to EI TI DUNHi
in v. 22. In Ep 4.9 the TO in TO ANEBH points back to ANABAS in v. 8. In Hb
12.27 the TO in TO ... ETI hAPAX points back to ETI hAPAX in v. 26.
Furthermore, it is hard to see how these uses of TO are deictic by the
definition you gave above ("based on the social/historical situation, which
is independent of text"). These instances of TO are far from being based on
the social/historical situation *independent* of the text. In fact, they are
quite dependent on the text.
> [Steven]
> If so, it is nominative. It functions either appositionally ("that is,
> who would be the greatest of them") or epexegetically ("over who would be
> the greatest of them"). On the whole, epexegesis seems most likely, since
> it seems to makes the best sense.
>
> [Moon]
> I agree with your conclusion on the function of the definite clause.
> But TO in the definite clause is not used to [loosely] refer to
> DISLOGISMOS.
I guess I'm at a loss here. You seem to be saying that you agree that the
clause that is substantivized by TO is epexegetical, but not in relation to
DIALOGISMOS. I'm having a hard time trying to figure out to what it might be
epexegetical if not DIALOGISMOS. Remember, when I say it is epexegetical, I
mean epexegetical *syntactically*. As such, it must relate to and explain or
expand on some other word or phrase or clause in the sentence of which it is
a part. If I have misunderstood you, please explain further.
Steve Lo Vullo,
Madison, WI
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:45 EDT