From: Clwinbery@aol.com
Date: Sat Dec 01 2001 - 15:22:15 EST
In a message dated 12/1/01 6:40:00 AM, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
>At 6:37 AM -0500 12/1/01, Harry W. Jones wrote:
>>Dear Carlton,
>>
>>If I may be so bold to ask.
>>
>>Why couldn't the relative clause TO PERI POLLWN EKCUNNOMENON, be in
>>apposition to TO hAIMA in Matthew 26:28 rather than attributive to it?
>
>No one would accuse you of not being bold, Harry. But. of TO PERI POLLWN
>EKCUNNONMENON is a substantive in its own right (as it must be to be in
>"apposition" to TO hAIMA, then the meaning attached to it would have to
>be
>something like "what is being poured out for many" or "the thing which
>is
>being poured out for many." I think it had better be understood as
>attributive.
>--
Harry, Carl's next post makes clear that what has to happen for apposition to
be present is the two substantives have to be exactly the same, whether it is
regular apposition or the special category some grammarians have - genitive
of apposition. Now the question in Luke 18:13 is are MOI and TWi hAMARTWLWi
identical. Is there more to MOI than just being a sinner. I think so, and
that is what causes my hesitation to join Carl in jumping ship. The least we
can say about this article is that it marks the prayer as a member of the
group. Does it do more? I don't know.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
---
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