From: Iver Larsen (iver_larsen@sil.org)
Date: Sat Dec 01 2001 - 02:39:38 EST
> >> "Sometimes the article is equivalent to a relative pronoun in *force*.
> James Brooks and I also allowed for a category of the article used as a
> pronoun, but the more I think of it, the more I think such is
> unnecessary.
>
> One of our eggs was Matt. 26:28. TOUTO ESTIN TO hAIMA MOU THS
> DIAQHKHS *TO* PERI POLLWN EKCUNNOMENON EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN.
>
> Now, it could be argued that the participle, EKCUNNOMENON, serves as
> the verb of the "relative" clause, but I think it suffices to say
> that the
> second article agreeing with hAIMA simply puts everything following it
> into an attributive position to hAIMA. Relative clauses have finite verbs
> expressed or understood, so I would be more convinced if we could
> find an article introducing a clause with a finite verb. Since there are
> two modifiers of hAIMA, MOU and THS DIAQHKHS, the use of the
> following article is the only way to express this attribution. Could this
> be one more of the categories that have gotten into the grammars but
> needs to be taken out?
>
> Carlton Winbery
> Louisiana College
In one way, I would agree with Carlton that these could be called
appositions/phrases in attributive positions. For those who are looking at
Greek on its own terms and not primarily concerned with translation, I think
that would work.
But at the same time we need to realize that if we were to express a
particular sentence like Matt 26:28 above in proper English, we would have
to use a relative clause rather than a corresponding English apposition or
attributive phrase/clause - or a completely new sentence. All English
translations of Matt 26:28 and many similar places use a relative clause or
an independent sentence. This is what lies behind the statement that the
Greek article may in some instances be equivalent to a relative pronoun "in
force".
I studied and wrote a grammar for an African language which does not have
adjectives in attributive position. If you want to say "a good man" in this
language, you just have to say "man who (is) good" where the verb "is" is
implicit. We called it a relative clause because it is introduced by a
relative marker which was marked for number. It would be possible to say
that it is "something in an attributive position". In linguistic
descriptions there is often not one and only one right way to describe a
grammatical construction. Which description is most helpful depends on the
target audience and the grammatical inventory they are familiar with. It
also depends on what you are going to use the description for, and I am
obviously biased by being a translator rather than a Greek teacher.
Just as the range of meaning of a word in one language is not identical to
the range of meaning of the "corresponding word" in another language, so is
the use of a grammatical construction in one language not identical to the
use of the "corresponding construction" in another language. Two languages
may both have the grammatical category of "relative clause" but the use of
that category is not identical in the two languages. The danger for all of
us is to assume that such categories "fit" across languages even when they
don't.
So, I still think it is helpful to realize that the Greek relative pronoun
sometimes needs to be translated into English by a demonstrative or pronoun
followed by a relative (as we discussed some time ago), just as the Greek
article sometimes needs to be translated by a relative pronoun in English in
order to communicate the intended meaning.
Coming back to Lk 18:13, I have no problem accepting TWi hAMARTWLWi as a
phrase in an attributive position to MOI. Like other attributes, it
describes the noun or pronoun it modifies, and so does a relative clause.
But I do have a problem if that necessarily leads to translating it into
English as "me, the sinner" or "me, a sinner" and does not allow for the
possibility that a better translation is "me who am a sinner". The idea that
the use of the Greek article somehow highlights a contrast to the Pharisee
is IMO based on the function of the English definite article, as in THE
sinner, rather the function of the Greek article.
NLT says: "be merciful to me, for I am a sinner."
CEV says: "have pity on me! I am such a sinner."
Both are good translations.
As far as I can tell, it would not be possible in Greek to use a relative
pronoun as in *MOI hOS hAMARTWLOS (EIMI?). A relative pronoun following a
personal pronoun apparently never refers to the same person as the personal
pronoun does. This was a new discovery to me, and I invite people to correct
me by searching their databases for instances of a personal pronoun followed
by a relative pronoun. I may have overlooked something.
But if this is a correct hypotheses, it seems that the only way to express
in Greek what corresponds to "me who am a sinner" is MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi. If
the pronoun had been in the nominative, one could say EGW hAMARTWLOS WN.
Iver Larsen
---
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 - 15:37:13 EDT