From: Mike Sangrey (msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org)
Date: Sat Jul 21 2001 - 12:49:41 EDT
Chet Creider <creider@csd.uwo.ca> said:
> My wording (...the punctuation is unambiguous...) was unfortunate.
> What I should have written was that the text of Is. 40:6 (PWNH
> LEGONTOS BOHSON) was unambiguous as to where the direct speech should
> begin (viz right after the participle) in a way that Is. 40:3 was
> ambiguous (grammatically speaking).
This makes me wonder something: Are you saying that to the Semitic
mind, direct speech naturally follows a participle? I'm wondering
about a general principle that could be cautiously applied to the GNT.
In other words, yes, the GNT is in Greek (perhaps in some cases
translated from some other language), but it was written by a Semitic
mind. So, wouldn't they naturally have chosen some forms which reflect
the Semitic way of thinking? If I can understand a little more about
how the Semitic mind put things together than there is some places,
like Mk 1:2, where the ambiguity can be more easily resolved.
I'm sure it is more complicated than this, but I'm wondering.
--
Mike Sangrey
msangrey@BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."
---
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 - 15:37:01 EDT