From: Glenn Blank (glennblank@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 03:25:50 EDT
Col 3.8
NUNI DE APOQESQE KAI hUMEIS TA PANTA
Iver wrote,
>although I do have a different perspective on part of it.
I understand, Iver, why your parsing of the syntax would give you that
perspective, but I am having trouble seeing how that perspective fits the
context and the other occurrences of KAI hUMEIS in Paul's writings. (See
"A3" below) But meanwhile, I concur with your comments leading up to that
point.
>KAI signifies "in addition to" and involves some kind of comparison.
Yes, this is what I had in mind -- unless of course it is a coordinating
conjunction, as I have suggested in (C) below, in which case, it is "in
addition to" but not necessarily a comparison.
>Fronted positions or context can then in conjunction with the independent
>pronoun signify contrast.
Yes
>In 3:8 NUNI contrasts "life now" with "life before", both by its lexical
>content and first position.
Yes, I am with you so far. (Except that the majority of times NUNI occurs
in Paul's writings, it is at the beginning of the clause, suggesting that
rather than prominence, this may be the normative position for him)
>That APOQESQE occurs before the pronoun subject indicates in my
>understanding of word order that the lexical content "discard, put away" is
>relatively more important than hUMEIS. The hearers know that Paul is
talking
>to them, so hUMEIS is understood, but the key point is what they should do.
Yes. Of course, since "you" is understood, just its being explicitly
stated in
hUMEIS places some importance on it, as you mention next:
>hUMEIS indicates the focus [is shifting to]** the Colossians and the
>contrast to the "sons of disobedience".
Yes.
A) >KAI indicates that the Colossians, too, like other Christians, need to
put
>away such things.
A1) This parapraph alongside the previous paragraph is where I lose you --
the two points seem to contradict each other. That is, hUMEIS indicates a
shift of focus from "the sons of disobedience" while KAI although governing
hUMEIS, has no relation to "the sons of disobedience." In each of the other
22 passages I cited, the group of people hUMEIS shifts focus from is the
same group of people that KAI draws a parallel with.
So then, if it is as you say, that KAI governs hUMEIS, it is true that
>the comparison must be between the
>Colossians and other people.
A2) But the only other people being discussed in the context are "the sons
of disobedience"
But as you say,
>Those other people cannot be the sons of
>obedience as it was in v. 7,
Because "the sons of disobedience" have *not* put off those things. So what
other group of people is KAI drawing a relationship with?
>presumably other Christians like Paul, his
>companions and other believers the Colossians know about.
A3) But there is no mention of these other groups of Christians in the
context. The closest context of another Christian modeling a behavior with
which this parallel could possibly be made is way back in 2.5, and Paul's
behavior there is just a vague parallel to the notion of putting off. By
contrast, in each of the other 22 instances I cited, the KAI hUMEIS
parallels a group of people in the immediately preceding context.
>That group is called the chosen ones in v. 12.
But in v. 12, it is not another group of people -- it is still "you." (In
addition, can this use of KAI have a kataphoric reference?)
So my conclusion is that although KAI normally governs the word that follows
it, it does not govern hUMEIS in this context.
B) The context does in fact suggest that TA PANTA is the constituent
governed by KAI -- Paul twice before listed things the Colossians were to be
rid of: be dead to the rudiments of the world (2.20); mortify your earthly
members, fornication, uncleanness, etc. (3.5); put off also all these,
anger, wrath, etc. (3.8)
B1) You have posited often that elements are moved forward in a clause in
order to raise their prominence. Are there any limitations to what can be
moved and how far? Specifically, is there a restriction on an element being
moved in such a way that separates it from what it governs? (That, BTW, is
a question Brian Tucker may want to look at in preparing his lecture on GB
and Koine -- do the restraints on movement outside of C-Command in GB
accurately predict what kinds of word order are found in NTG?)
B2) So what I am suggesting is that KAI has been moved for prominence to a
place in front of hUMEIS. Is there precedent for such a suggestion? 1Th
2:13 seems so.
KAI DIA TOUTO KAI hHMEIS EUCARISTOUMEN TWi QEWi ADIALEIPTWS
This seems like exactly the same structure in the same kind of context. You
have KAI preceding hHMEIS. But what would hHMEIS be being compared to? Who
else in the context is giving thanks? On the other hand, if we suppose that
KAI governs EUXARISTOUMEN, then it makes sense in context -- There is a
whole series of "we" doing something -- "we were gentle among you" (v 7);
"we behaved justly among you" (v 10); "we exhorted and comforted you" (v
11); "we *also* give thanks to God" (v 13).
C) A third option may be that KAI in 3.8 is not governing any single
constituent within the clause but the entire clause, with part of the clause
getting fronted before the conjunction:
NUNI DE {APOQESQE} KAI { } hUMEIS TA PANTA
similar to the way a constituent of the clause seems to be fronted before
the conjunction in Acts 19.4 --
TWi LAWi LEGWN /{EIS TON ERCOMENON MET' AUTON} hINA PISTEUSWSIN { ________
}/
presumably from
TWi LAWi LEGWN / hINA PISTEUSWSIN {EIS TON ERCOMENON MET' AUTON} /
Josephine, I have roiled the waters terribly, I know, and I am sure you were
not asking for all of this with your original question. But Iver, you got
me thinking. I am not completely sold on my parsings in (B) and (C) yet,
but on the other hand, the option you present (A) seems odd in the context.
Any additional points that will help me get down off the horns of this
dilemma I have hooked myself onto are welcomed :)
PS-----------------------------------------------
**[is shifting to] I inserted into Iver's comment above. Iver, I think you
would
agree with the clarification, no? that we would only expect to see the
explicit pronoun at the point where the focus is shifting from one referent
to another, and once the focus is established on the second referent, we
would not
continue to expect the explicit pronoun with succeeding verbs even though
the focus is still on that referent.
glenn blank
Pensacola FL
---
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 - 15:37:23 EDT