From: Kevin Cauley (cauley@airmail.net)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 14:28:58 EST
So, following the analogy, the house would not be complete until both the
foundation and the roof were complete? I.E. the time of the participles,
"laying" and "constructing" is concurrent with the time of the main verb,
"build." The process of building a house involves at least 1) laying the
foundation and 2) constructing the roof, and there is a definite order in
that, but can the time of the main verb be complete it its thought without
the completion (whatever order that is) of the two participles?
So, getting back to the Greek. If there is no order to the participles,
could one say that the main verb, MAQHTEUSATE is completed prior to the
completion of the participles? Or, must we say that MAQHTEUSATE cannot be
completed until both BAPTIZONTES and DIDASKONTES are completed? Asked
another way, if the participles take their time from the lead verb, then can
the participles be accomplished outside of the activity in the lead verb?
Kevin Cauley
-----Original Message-----
From: c stirling bartholomew [mailto:cc.constantine@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:39 PM
To: Biblical Greek
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Matthew 28:19,20
on 3/3/02 9:39 AM, Chuck Tripp wrote:
> I was thinking about this after my earlier email. The meaning of the two
> participle verbs can convey the idea of sequence. I was thinking for
> example one could construct a sentence where the indicative verb is 'build
> houses' and the two participles are 'laying foundations' and 'constructing
> roofs.' It would go something like this: 'go into the world and build
> houses, laying foundations and constructing roofs.' My greek is nowhere
> good enough to construct this in greek (though I think I would throw in a
> word like EPEITE to avoid ambiguity), but imagine this sentence in greek.
> There would be an obvious sequence in the meaning to the two participles.
> The sequence is not inherent to the syntax of the sentence i.e. indicative
+
> participle + participle but instead comes out of the meaning of the words.
>
{snip}
> I am not saying that the
> case can't be made one way or the other, but that one has to go beyond the
> syntax of the sentence to come to a conclusion.
Chuck,
Yes Yes!
Once again we find our b-greek friends beating their heads against a wall
trying to coerce information out of the syntax of the a verbal construction
(finite verb + participles), information which isn't there and cannot be
coerced.
The sequence information if it exists at all in this context is in the
semantic structure not in the syntax.
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: [cauley@airmail.net]
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
---
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 - 15:37:19 EDT