From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2001 - 05:51:20 EST
Steven wrote:
> 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.
>
[Moon]
The questions are relevant if the examples make sense even without the
neuter article. In that case, the role of the neuter article is not just
to make the clause a noun clause, but to make the clause refer to a
specific
concept or idea.
[Moon]
> > 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.
>
[Steven]
> 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.
>
[Moon]
OK. But for the sake of argument, let us distinguish the two cases.
> > 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).
[Moon]
If we had,
An argument arose amoung them. The reason was that someone claimed he was
the
greatest (1),
If the writer introduces "an argument", things related to that are also
introduced, and the writer can refer to them by using definite
expressions.
Given "an argument", there should be the reason for that, even though
its exact content is not known. Hence the writer can use "the reason"
to refer to the reason of the argument. In short,
If Y is "anaphoric" to X, the determination of
the referent of Y is based on or derived from the referent of X.
Consider, however, "Here comes a great man, the president of the United
States". (2)
"The president of the United States" clearly explains "a great man". But
I do not think that "the president of the United States" refers back to
or is anaphoric to "a great man". The article in "The president of the
United
States" is deitic in that its use is based on the common social
experience,
which is independent of text. When the writer introduces "a great man",
there
are many things related to this entity to which the writer can refer by
using
definite expressions. But "the president of the United States" is too
specific
to infer from "a great man". So, the reason for the definite expression
should be found elsewhere.
In the present case, we have:
an argument arose among them, that (TO) which of them is greatest. (3)
That which of them is greatest clearly explains "an argument". But I am
not sure if the clause refers back or is anaphoric to "an argument"
in the same way as in (1). I am not sure if the referent of the clause in
(2) is based on or derived from "an argument". "Which of them is greatest"
is
too specific to infer from "an argument". I think the usage of TO in (3)
is more like that of "the" in (2).
I am inclined to think that the question of "which of them is
greatest" is introduced somewhat unexpectedly. i.e. without any support of
the previous text. But because the question is not an uncommon topic among
people, the reader would be ready to accept it as "known" (thereby
accepting the use of TO) even if it is introduced somewhat unexpectedly.
Let me consider an example where the definite expression is anaphoric (by
my definition).
[Steven]
> 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.
>
[Moon]
Aha! If you use "anaphoric" that loosely, I have no problem with what you
said.
But the word sounds or looks too technical to be used so loosely.
[Moon]
> > For that matter, the definite clauses in all the examples given by Steven seem
> > to be deitic.
>
[Steven]
> 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.
[Moon]
I am sorry for the confusion I created. I am not sure why I made such a
mistake. The examples you talked about above all have the anaphoric TO.
But in Mt 19.18, TO is both anaphoric and deitic. TO in 19.18 is based on
TAS ENTOLAS and POIAS. But at the same time, the individual commandments
are well-known to the reader, independent of the preceding text.
But I would like to consider TO in Rom 8:26 deitic. We have:
Moreover, in like manner also, the Spirit helps our weakness.
For this (TO), what we shall pray as necessary, we do not know.
The problem of "what we shall pray as necessary" would have been a
known problem to the reader.
>
> > [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.
>
[Steven]
> 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.
[Moon]
Now that I have explained how I use "anaphoric", the confusion should have
gone. What I said was "TO" in the clause does not refer to or anaphoric
to DIALOGISMOS, according to my definition, which is usually adopted in
linguistics.
I learned quite a lot by studying the examples you gave. Thanks for that
and for the opportunity to clarify myself.
Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor
Dept of Digital Media
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
---
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