From: c stirling bartholomew (cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Wed Jul 04 2001 - 12:12:46 EDT
on 7/4/01 7:58 AM, Randy Leedy wrote:
Hi Randy,
Thanks for the help.
Every thing you said up the following quote is, as you called it, pretty
basic stuff:
> I almost get the impression that you're
> suggesting that appositives are in the nominative case across the
> board.
Certainly didn't mean to imply that. Apposition is not determined by case at
all. I was just musing over some comments in DM. See following remarks.
>I don't know for sure where you're getting the idea that Dana
> and Mantey characterize it as the appositional case. A glance at my
> copy reveals no such statement, though they do describe its
> development in terms of its being used in apposition to the verb's
> understood subject. But that's a far cry from saying that its basic
> function is appositional with no qualifications about what it renames.
DM page 69 reads "In Greek the verb expresses its own subject . . .
Consequently when we express a noun subject of the verb, it is in apposition
with the subject implied in the verb itself. . . . Therefore, the
nominative is more than the case of the subject: it is the case of specific
designation, and is in appositional relationship."
What DM state is that a nominative subject is in appositional relationship
to the subject in the verb ending. This makes apposition a default
characteristic of of nominative subjects with finite verbs. While not being
the "appositional case", a poor choice of words, according to DM it is a
case which bears an appositonal relationship according to DM. DM's
statements are certainly open to criticism but this is somewhat of a side
issue. Don't really care if we agree or disagree with DM. So I will drop the
discussion of DM.
My question was very specific, only had to do with verbless clauses with two
nominative constituents. Supplying the "implied verb" to a clause like this
is a questionable analytical procedure. The idea that a "verb is implied" in
these clauses is suspect. The idiom in Greek does not require a verb. The
verbless clause isn't missing anything.
My question can be illustrated by looking at an opening to one of Paul's
letters. Take for example 2Cor 1:1 PAULOS APOSTOLOS, the constituent
APOSTOLOS is in apposition to PAULOS. But I would suggest that APOSTOLOS is
being used here as a predication about PAULOS. Paul is not just using
APOSTOLOS as a title, he is making an assertion that he is and apostle. But
should PAULOS APOSTOLOS (2Cor 1:1) be understood as a verbless clause?
Probably not. What I am pointing out is a functional overlap between
apposition and predication. This functional overlap causes problems in some
analytical models of Greek syntax. When an appositive is used to predicate
but does not really form an independent clause what do we call it? How do we
fit it into our syntax model?
Randy, thanks again for your help. And thanks to all the off list
respondents as well.
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
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 - 15:37:00 EDT