Skip to content

2 John 11

Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 20th, 2017, 1:09 am
How difficult is it to make concordance list this into one with verse-either-side or paragraph contexts? Looking them up one by one and finding the element mentioned is tedious.
Here's one way you could do that: use a text editor to make lists of verses like this:
CODE:
Luke 19:23; John 17:6; John 17:8
Now use a site like Biblegateway that allows you to specify more than one verse at the same time. Here is the format for the URL you need:
CODE:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 19:23; John 17:6; John 17:8&version=SBLGNT
Or you can enter the list of verses into their text box and select SBLGNT, if you prefer. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the results of that, or put it into your moieties thread. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 20th, 2017, 6:16 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 6th, 2017, 8:38 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 6th, 2017, 12:23 pm
Here is another nice one to substitute for your lack of happiness.
John 4:54 wrote:Τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
Thanks! Here's a list of about 640 instances of split focus in Levinsohn's analysis: https://github.com/biblicalhumanities/l ... _Focal.xml
Picking a few of them here and there (random sampling) has them all belonging to the older (consecutive) type of dual speech style sequence. I'd like to confirm that is or isn't the case to my own satisfaction by looking at all of them. In some cases where words belong to both vocabulary moieties (the general / abstract AND the specific / concrete), the split focus seems to indicate which of the meanings should be read, by clarifying in which speech style unit they belong. How difficult is it to make concordance list this into one with verse-either-side or paragraph contexts? Looking them up one by one and finding the element mentioned is tedious. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 20th, 2017, 1:09 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 11:58 pm
 
MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 11:53 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
Can you say more about linguistic choice vs. authorial choice, and how you interpret Levinsohn's principle in that light?
There's a section from a book that I could pdf and share that lays out linguistic choice very nicely.
What's the cite for that? I don't think I've read anything that quite puts it so pithily as you do.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:50 am
I would appreciate that.
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 4:42 pm
Intriguing. Taking pause before listing it under sophistry. Thinking along the lines that language is a rigged system.
Here it is. This is a chunk of pages from chapter 5 of Carl Bache's (1997) The study of tense, aspect and action. I hope some of you find it useful. Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — April 13th, 2017, 11:03 am
 
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 13th, 2017, 4:40 am
I know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of grammar. I don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding than they do.
I know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of Grammar. I don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding of grammar than they do. Robert's Editor Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — April 13th, 2017, 10:44 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 3:36 pm
Could you take a text or two and show us how these tools enhance our understanding of the text?
These tools don't enhance our understanding of a text. They simply make explicit things that are otherwise understood implicitly. I know accomplished writers and editors who admit to having a poor grasp of grammar. I don't arrogantly pretend to have a better understanding than they do. Anyone who thinks that Discourse Analysis inculcates a superior understanding of the NT is in a sad delusion. Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — April 13th, 2017, 4:40 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 3:21 pm
My current reading: The Colon Hypothesis, has helped solidify my understanding of the fundamental issues in text linguistics: cohesion, texture/textuality, scenarios, scripts. I think some people consider word order and foreground/background the main issues and they are not. Anyway, we don’t need to answer the skeptics. Let them continue doing 19th century philology for the duration. Who cares?
I've read The Colon Hypothesis. It is an idiosyncratic, exasperating yet fascinating book. There's a lot right and a lot weird in it. As far as I can recall, he's mostly interested in the order of colons, and he uses word order (among several other criteria) to diagnose his colons. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 12th, 2017, 7:01 pm
 
MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 1:50 pm
Linguistic choice isn't authorial choice.
Intriguing. Taking pause before listing it under sophistry. Thinking along the lines that language is a rigged system. Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — April 12th, 2017, 4:42 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
That said, as I begin to see through the fog, I think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than I once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that I was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously.
I remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on B-Greek. I didn't get it then. Now, I need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations.
I'm beginning to get it now. And I've always needed more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations, I've usually done that via inductive Bible study and phenomenological approaches to the text.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 12th, 2017, 3:21 pm
My current reading: The Colon Hypothesis, has helped solidify my understanding of the fundamental issues in text linguistics: cohesion, texture/textuality, scenarios, scripts. I think some people consider word order and foreground/background the main issues and they are not.
Could you take a text or two and show us how these tools enhance our understanding of the text? I'd like to learn. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 12th, 2017, 3:36 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm
I remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on B-Greek. I didn't get it then. Now, I need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations.
That's right. Some of us have been doing this forever. It isn't news. Long since given up trying to win people over. Some of the books from the 70's and the 80's are still being cited, Brown & Yule, Halliday and Hassan. We keep mentioning these books and keep adding to the list to bring it up to date. But people who simply refuse to do the basic minimal work to get familiar with the discipline keep asking questions that have been answered a thousand times in the literature. My current reading: The Colon Hypothesis, has helped solidify my understanding of the fundamental issues in text linguistics: cohesion, texture/textuality, scenarios, scripts. I think some people consider word order and foreground/background the main issues and they are not. Anyway, we don’t need to answer the skeptics. Let them continue doing 19th century philology for the duration. Who cares? Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 12th, 2017, 3:21 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 12:00 am
I don't want to appear obtuse or anything, but what overblown claims are you talking about? In my experience, both Levinsohn and Runge (the only two names mentioned in this thread) are measured in their claims. Is someone else giving discourse analysis a bad rap?
I'm not sure how much of this is me misunderstanding things, but I think the main things that confused me for the longest time were (1) the distinction between Discourse Grammar (at the sentence level) and Discourse Features versus Discourse Analysis, (2) a feeling that all choices imply interpretive meaning, (3) a feeling that this is all clear-cut, well understood, and simple once you learn it.
Thanks. A few comments: (1) The very terminology of "grammar" and "feature" as opposed to "analysis" is a recognition that all they are offering is some building blocks toward a larger theory that is still under investigation. (2) For some reason the heuristic "choice implies meaning" really rubs people the wrong way. I wish I knew why, because in the end there really is no alternative to a scientific investigation of language. (3) :D
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
That said, as I begin to see through the fog, I think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than I once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that I was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously.
I remember people talking about discourse analysis twenty years ago on B-Greek. I didn't get it then. Now, I need more out of my Greek than identifying syntactic relations. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 11th, 2017, 7:07 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 11th, 2017, 12:00 am
I don't want to appear obtuse or anything, but what overblown claims are you talking about? In my experience, both Levinsohn and Runge (the only two names mentioned in this thread) are measured in their claims. Is someone else giving discourse analysis a bad rap?
I'm not sure how much of this is me misunderstanding things, but I think the main things that confused me for the longest time were (1) the distinction between Discourse Grammar (at the sentence level) and Discourse Features versus Discourse Analysis, (2) a feeling that all choices imply interpretive meaning, (3) a feeling that this is all clear-cut, well understood, and simple once you learn it. That said, as I begin to see through the fog, I think it's less complicated and more clear-cut than I once thought, at least at the Discourse Features level. And part of the problem may be that I was exposed to this long ago but only now am beginning to look at it more seriously. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 11th, 2017, 7:56 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote: In regard to something you mentioned earlier.... It is quite possible to pronounce both stress and tonality at the same time in the same syllable (or in different ones for that matter). Have you tried to do that successfully with Greek? The rules of relative intonation, and relative stress and relatiive word length may all funciton separately for all I know. It is something that I would like to look at further.
We do see evidence of stress-based effects in Koine, so that was certainly present. I assume that in the Koine period stress and pitch accents (largely?) coincided. (They don't coincide, for example, in Swedish for "tone 2" or grave words, whose different pitch on the ultima I tend to misperceive as greater stress.) English too has a pitch accent, and it can move from word-to-word (or stressed syllable to stresss syllable) in an intonation unit for pragmatic reasons, but I don't see a lot of evidence for such a mobile pitch accent in Koine. Rather, the main Koine strategy is to move constituents to the place of greater (or lesser) phonological prominence. Since the highest peak is usually at the beginining of an intonation unit (modulo the behavior of graves) per D&S, this may explain why Koine fronts words for emphasis, e.g, narrow focus. In other words, the general reliance on movement for pragmatic reasons suggests to me that the pitch accent in Koine may still be following the D&S rules (obtained by analyzing Koine period evidence, though earlier than the NT), even if there is also a coinciding (lexical) stress accent. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 23rd, 2014, 5:29 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:Do I need to consider re-evaluating my modelling?
Perhaps?
I'm not sure that there should be correspndence. I'm trying primarily to make sentence timing. That may not necessarily be coincident with intonation anyway. Their rule is a very simple one of resetting. In regard to something you mentioned earlier.... It is quite possible to pronounce both stress and tonality at the same time in the same syllable (or in different ones for that matter). Have you tried to do that successfully with Greek? The rules of relative intonation, and relative stress and relatiive word length may all funciton separately for all I know. It is something that I would like to look at further. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 23rd, 2014, 4:37 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote: Could you check for me, by applying the rules of intonational phonology, in so far as you understand them, and let me know whether my assumptions of equivalence give the same point of highest peak. Does πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at the χαίρειν as you have suggested it is for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν
If I understand D&S right, there would be an initial peak on the full accent in πᾶς. Ordinarily, there would be a downtrend (catathesis) following the initial peak wherein the next full accent would be lower, but this is canceled by a (nonlexical) grave. We can call that anathesis. So the highest peak would be on the full accent in λέγων. At this point, catathesis applies and the χαίρειν would have a lower peak than in λέγων. By contrast, the γὰρ in ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν follows λέγων, so the peak should be after it. (I'm not clear yet on the status of αὐτῷ: D&S state that full accents (here the circumflex) don't do anything in nonlexicals, which is why I thought the next peak would be on the following χαίρειν, but I suppose if αὐτῷ is emphasized, the intonation would be different...) Also, internal prosodic breaks could reset the intonation.
Stephen Hughes wrote: and does ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν / πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἀν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at λέγειν as you've suggested for ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν
For these, I'd place the highest peak on λέγῃ.
Stephen Hughes wrote: Do I need to consider re-evaluating my modelling?
Perhaps? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 23rd, 2014, 4:14 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: If I understand the intonational phonology of Greek according to the Devine and Stephens correctly, it would seem that the two word orderings place the highest pitch accent for the phrase in different places. For ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the έ in λέγων, while for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the αί in χαίρειν. The reason for this has to do with the behavior of the nonlexical grave in γὰρ. In other words, the two variant readings not only have different word orders, but they would have sounded differently.
Could you check for me, by applying the rules of intonational phonology, in so far as you understand them, and let me know whether my assumptions of equivalence give the same point of highest peak. Does πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at the χαίρειν as you have suggested it is for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν and does ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν / πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἀν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at λέγειν as you've suggested for ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν ? Do I need to consider re-evaluating my modelling? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 22nd, 2014, 5:02 pm
If I understand the intonational phonology of Greek according to the Devine and Stephens correctly, it would seem that the two word orderings place the highest pitch accent for the phrase in different places. For ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the έ in λέγων, while for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the αί in χαίρειν. The reason for this has to do with the behavior of the nonlexical grave in γὰρ. In other words, the two variant readings not only have different word orders, but they would have sounded differently. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 22nd, 2014, 4:22 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν
Interesting. Could you explain how you got there?
Do I have to explain that I got there in that context of excommunication? And the warning of consequences if someone doesn't keep a distance from the excommunicated? The one seems formed by extracting it from the phrase πᾶς ὁ λέγων and the other seems to be formed directly from a (subjunctive) form of the verb. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 21st, 2014, 10:28 am
 
I don't understand what you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying that John has a problem or struggle with grammar and that the placement is crude or perhaps less formal, but on the other hand you're saying that it is not a mistake and still acceptable. So what is it? Good grammar or bad? And if good, does the difference in position contribute to a difference in (semantic, pragmatic) meaning?
Good grammar for whom? By way of an analogy, William F. Buckley, Jr. used the English language in ways that most mortal's are incapable of duplicating. His grammar was probably impeccable. My grammar is simple, not sophisticated. I use a different set of criteria when evaluating Buckley's grammar than when I evaluate mine. Yes, John's grammar may not be "technically" "correct," but nor do I expect him to write at the level of Buckley (pardon the crude analogy, not to mention the chronological "incongruency"). Why do we expect all biblical authors to have near-perfect grammar? I don't believe language works that way. It is much more complex than just a set of grammatical rules that are to be obeyed. I am really asking a question myself here. Was there one, perfect, ideal, acceptable set of grammatical rules in first-century biblical Greek? Did the writer of Hebrews follow "those" rules better than John did? Are some usages of John's grammar a "mistake"? Do we interpret John's Greek differently than when we evaluate Tertius' Greek? I have a lot of questions here but I really don't know where I come down on them. You asked, "So what is it? Good grammar or bad?" Do you mean correct grammar or wrong grammar? Help me understand how one is to understand/interpret John's placement of a conjunction compared to the author of Hebrews' usage of a postpositive? I don't know. I don't see any significance with John's placement of the conjunction, whether in the second or third position. I understand, I believe, what he is writing here. Does the "difference in position contribute to a difference in (semantic, pragmatic) meaning?" No, not with John. As we read all of John's works, I really would not see a difference here. Do you? What possible difference could he be making with this "incorrect" position of γαρ. Does he demonstrate such precision in his other writings as to warrant seeing some semantic/pragmatic difference? By my saying that John's grammar may be crude at times was intended to make a statement about all his writings seen together. John does not write at a level of grammar that would cause us to look too deeply at this third position of γαρ. If we read an Atticist, perhaps we would ask such a question. As you can see, I'm just rambling and trying to write out loud about what my own questions are. Am I way off? I am always open to correction in my thinking. Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — January 21st, 2014, 8:38 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν
Interesting. Could you explain how you got there?
ὁ and participle are kept together in thought by the πᾶς. That's the only reason I can think of why the stick together. Λέγειν is by itself in that second phrase ὃς ἂν + subj., or in the phrase ὅστις + indicative, but I favoured ὃς ἂν + subj. because it is more common. Nothing complex in my reasoning. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 21st, 2014, 7:56 am
 
Alan Patterson wrote: The physical position of γὰρ seems fine in either position. I would say one position is more formal, but both are acceptable. If you take ὁ λέγων as a unit, then the following γὰρ seems to have an acceptable postpositive position. Whenever we read John, we know to be careful with his syntax and grammar; it appears, at times, a bit sloppy, but it does nevertheless get the point across. We all expect writers to be grammarians, but that is just not the case. Some writes just struggle with grammar as others struggle with physics. The placement is not wrong, perhaps crude is a better description.
I don't understand what you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying that John has a problem or struggle with grammar and that the placement is crude or perhaps less formal, but on the other hand you're saying that it is not a mistake and still acceptable. So what is it? Good grammar or bad? And if good, does the difference in position contribute to a difference in (semantic, pragmatic) meaning? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 21st, 2014, 4:13 am
 
MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 11:53 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
Can you say more about linguistic choice vs. authorial choice, and how you interpret Levinsohn's principle in that light?
There's a section from a book that I could pdf and share that lays out linguistic choice very nicely.
I would appreciate that. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 11th, 2017, 7:50 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
I think a lot of contradictory and sometimes overblown claims have been made by some people who talk about discourse analysis (don't ask me how that makes discourse any different from other areas of Greek language study ...). I'm slowly beginning to see through all that fog, but I suspect you are way ahead of me.
I don't want to appear obtuse or anything, but what overblown claims are you talking about? In my experience, both Levinsohn and Runge (the only two names mentioned in this thread) are measured in their claims. Is someone else giving discourse analysis a bad rap? Stephen Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 11th, 2017, 12:00 am
 
MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 11:53 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
Can you say more about linguistic choice vs. authorial choice, and how you interpret Levinsohn's principle in that light?
There's a section from a book that I could pdf and share that lays out linguistic choice very nicely.
What's the cite for that? I don't think I've read anything that quite puts it so pithily as you do. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 10th, 2017, 11:58 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
Can you say more about linguistic choice vs. authorial choice, and how you interpret Levinsohn's principle in that light?
There's a section from a book that I could pdf and share that lays out linguistic choice very nicely. Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — April 10th, 2017, 11:53 pm
RE: choice implies meaning That is M.A.K. Halliday. See: Discourse Analysis: A Theoretical Introduction and Practical Application to the New Testament Hallam Willis  McMaster Divinity College, New Testament, Graduate Student http://www.academia.edu/9659004/Discour ... _Testament Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 10th, 2017, 4:20 pm
 
MAubrey wrote:
April 10th, 2017, 1:50 pm
 
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 7:03 pm
I find some of the basic principals grandiose. Levinsohn,'Discourse Features of the New Testament Greek, p.viii' states 'One basic principal is that choice [of phrase order] implies meaning.' This he claims is always an informational nuance. I don't accept this; but, if it is true, a serious analysis should then include degrees of nuance. It might be important or less so.
It's actually quite mundane. Linguistic choice isn't authorial choice. It's is rarely interpretatively interesting. There's little grandiose about the basic principles.
Can you say more about linguistic choice vs. authorial choice, and how you interpret Levinsohn's principle in that light? I think a lot of contradictory and sometimes overblown claims have been made by some people who talk about discourse analysis (don't ask me how that makes discourse any different from other areas of Greek language study ...). I'm slowly beginning to see through all that fog, but I suspect you are way ahead of me. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 10th, 2017, 2:55 pm
 
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 7:03 pm
I find some of the basic principals grandiose. Levinsohn,'Discourse Features of the New Testament Greek, p.viii' states 'One basic principal is that choice [of phrase order] implies meaning.' This he claims is always an informational nuance. I don't accept this; but, if it is true, a serious analysis should then include degrees of nuance. It might be important or less so.
It's actually quite mundane. Linguistic choice isn't authorial choice. It's is rarely interpretatively interesting. There's little grandiose about the basic principles. Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — April 10th, 2017, 1:50 pm
 
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 7:03 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 1:49 pm
Text Linguistics isn’t just about word order; Textuality, Cohesion, Foreground, Background, Anaphora, Participant Reference ... someone else can complete the list.
Surely it is possible to recognise these features apart from Text Linguistics. This being the case much of its jargon amounts to mere clutter.
To me, one of the basic questions is this: at what point do we leave the world of syntax-wrote-large - including syntax of colons or passages or whatever - and enter the wild and wooly world of interpreting passages based on themes and setting and character and all that, and how much of this can linguistics help us with? I really don't have a good answer, just a question. To use an analogy from painting, color and perspective are important tools for a painter, but interpreting a painting is not as cut and dried as these things, and is done in a different domain. On the other hand, a solid grasp of technique will help you interpret a painting. I do think that some of the discourse features that Levinsohn and Runge identify are helpful for noticing some ways that context and focus are established, and I suspect we have a lot to learn from them. At this point, I suspect it might be useful to look at John 2:1-11 in a separate thread, look at what Levinsohn has said about it in his discourse features, and think about what it teaches us. I'll start that soonish.
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 7:03 pm
I find some of the basic principals grandiose. Levinsohn,'Discourse Features of the New Testament Greek, p.viii' states 'One basic principal is that choice [of phrase order] implies meaning.' This he claims is always an informational nuance. I don't accept this; but, if it is true, a serious analysis should then include degrees of nuance. It might be important or less so.
Less so would still mean that it implies meaning, but not much meaning. I'm not sure if every choice implies meaning, I suspect that native speaker might sometimes notice very little or no difference between alternate formulations. On the other hand, some choices usually imply a significant amount of meaning. For an English speaker, there is very little difference between these sentences: - I went to the store today. - Today, I went to the store. But I do think there is arguably a difference in focus. The second one puts the focus on "today".
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 7:03 pm
I can accept this kind of study as a working hypothesis, whereby theories are made in conclusion by way of yes accidental benefits, and not claimed preposterously beforehand.
I think we've seen discourse oversold sometimes. And perhaps more so in its early days than today. I don't think we can scientifically derive the correct interpretation by the mathematical calculation from discourse features, and I don't think discourse grammar is the same thing as discourse analysis. But maybe we should take a look at some passages in detail and see what it buys us? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 8th, 2017, 7:26 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 8th, 2017, 1:49 pm
Text Linguistics isn’t just about word order; Textuality, Cohesion, Foreground, Background, Anaphora, Participant Reference ... someone else can complete the list.
Surely it is possible to recognise these features apart from Text Linguistics. This being the case much of its jargon amounts to mere clutter. I find some of the basic principals grandiose. Levinsohn,'Discourse Features of the New Testament Greek, p.viii' states 'One basic principal is that choice [of phrase order] implies meaning.' This he claims is always an informational nuance. I don't accept this; but, if it is true, a serious analysis should then include degrees of nuance. It might be important or less so. I can accept this kind of study as a working hypothesis, whereby theories are made in conclusion by way of yes accidental benefits, and not claimed preposterously beforehand. Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — April 8th, 2017, 7:03 pm
Stirling - could you take a text, perhaps John 2:1-11, and show us how you would apply these different levels to interpret it? That might be best in a separate thread. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 8th, 2017, 5:47 pm
 
Robert Crowe wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 6:25 am
The more I learn about Discourse Analysis the less I am enthused about. It appears to lack a rigorous methodology. Fundamentally, it would be necessary to establish that Greek has a default word order.
Text Linguistics isn’t just about word order; Textuality, Cohesion, Foreground, Background, Anaphora, Participant Reference ... someone else can complete the list. The study of Text Linguistics has accidental benefits. You learn a lot about how texts function and in the process you learn a lot of other things about the language. Where you begin the analysis is optional. Just because you start with clause (Helma Dik) or colon (Frank SCHEPPERS) or sentence or paragraph, doesn’t mean that you will not be looking at higher or lower levels. Long time ago I got was introduced to "discourse" studies by Robert Longacre who taught me how to read a narrative. Last few days I have been reading selections from SCHEPPERS, F. (2011)[1] who argues that we should begin analysis with intonation units IU and/or colons rather than clauses or sentences. I don’t think colon identification will revolutionize text linguistics. On the other hand, the author has some interesting observations about alternating participles and finite verbs in narratives which go beyond foreground and background. I am reading this book for the accidental benefits. [1] SCHEPPERS, F. (2011), The Colon Hypothesis : Word Order, Discourse Segmentation and Discourse Coherence in Ancient Greek (Brussels) Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 8th, 2017, 1:49 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 6th, 2017, 12:23 pm
Here is another nice one to substitute for your lack of happiness.
John 4:54 wrote:Τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
Thanks! Here's a list of about 640 instances of split focus in Levinsohn's analysis: https://github.com/biblicalhumanities/l ... _Focal.xml
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 6th, 2017, 8:38 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 2:15 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:51 am
Cf. Luke 2:10 (Sorry I can't quote it).
Luke 2:10 wrote:καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος· Μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ,
What parallel do you see? My poor blind eyes don't see a split focus here.
Yes. It seems to have disappeared from that verse. I'm sure it will turn up on another one later. Here is another nice one to substitute for your lack of happiness.
John 4:54 wrote:Τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 6th, 2017, 12:23 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 2:15 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:51 am
Cf. Luke 2:10 (Sorry I can't quote it).
Luke 2:10 wrote:καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος· Μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ,
What parallel do you see? My poor blind eyes don't see a split focus here.
Yes. It seems to have disappeared from that verse. I'm sure it will turn up on another one later. Here is another nice one to substitute for your lack of happiness.
John 4:54 wrote:Τοῦτο πάλιν δεύτερον σημεῖον ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἐλθὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 6th, 2017, 12:23 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:34 am
I also found it helpful to stop thinking of discourse as one methodology.
I see a kind of method in your madness. Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — April 6th, 2017, 5:05 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 3rd, 2017, 7:34 am
Steven Runge and Stephen Levinsohn have I suspect it might be useful to look at the entire passage of John 2:1-11, looking at Levinsohn's analysis in detail, then compare it to Runge's. I have only Levinsohn's analysis, but perhaps someone out there has Runge's?
Steve & Stephen checked their databases against each other. I'd expect that they aren't super different in the majority of cases. Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — April 5th, 2017, 10:43 am
I'm very much still learning about discourse, and also considering which features should be represented in syntax trees and how. Runge and Levinsohn have each done a lot of work on identifying discourse features and discourse grammar of the sentence. They have each gone through the entire Greek New Testament, creating datasets that give the discourse features they believe exist in each sentence. That's quite a serious look at the data, and they had to make their theories fit the data. I'm currently looking at a few passages using Levinsohn's data, and it is making more sense to me than it did before. But I'm tending to look at his data to understand what he is doing instead of reading his earlier writing, and I suspect that he might write differently about some things now. When people talk about discourse analysis, they often say that it is about things that occur above the sentence level, but Runge and Levinsohn each focus primarily on features found within a sentence. Runge points out that the same features found in a sentence are used to structure discourse as a whole, and apparently showed how he would extend this to discourse analysis in his commentary of Romans, which I do not have and have not read. But when I started thinking of Runge and Levinsohn as grammar of discourse features, it was easier for me to grasp what they were doing. I also found it helpful to stop thinking of discourse as one methodology. Different people are doing decidedly different things, and I have not yet grasped what they are all doing. I am slowly grasping what Levinsohn is doing, and I think I have come to realize that Levinsohn's Point of Departure is different from Runge's frames, though they have a lot in common. Does anyone know of a good comparison of their methods? Steven Runge and Stephen Levinsohn have I suspect it might be useful to look at the entire passage of John 2:1-11, looking at Levinsohn's analysis in detail, then compare it to Runge's. I have only Levinsohn's analysis, but perhaps someone out there has Runge's? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 3rd, 2017, 7:34 am
This thread reminds me of the day a dodgy optician tried to sell me a pair of bi-focal glasses. The more I learn about Discourse Analysis the less I am enthused about. It appears to lack a rigorous methodology. Fundamentally, it would be necessary to establish that Greek has a default word order. The studies on this are purely statistical and the results vary depending on the text being investigated.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 2nd, 2017, 12:02 am
My criticism is that it is still immature and being worked out. But that's a big improvement over the past which is to bury one's head in the sand about it.
As things stand, the advocates appear to be digging a hole for themselves. Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — April 3rd, 2017, 6:25 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote: πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν
Interesting. Could you explain how you got there? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 21st, 2014, 4:08 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 4:53 pm
Perhaps the problem is I don't understand what he means by split focal. In other words, split focal may be compatible with the syntax analysis found in the grammars.
I'm not sure I understand that either. He's constantly been updating his system and not everything is documented well.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 4:53 pm
My general criticism of this system of analysis is that it is too complex to be useful for students of the Greek Bible. A seminary student doesn't have five years to dedicate to information structure analysis.
My criticism is that it is still immature and being worked out. But that's a big improvement over the past which is to bury one's head in the sand about it. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 2nd, 2017, 12:02 am
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
 
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ
. Prof. Carlson is looking at something later from Levinsohn than Discourse Features NTG 2000, where on page 83 bottom this Ταύτην is underlined but not bold.
Just call me Stephen. (I'm not a professor in the Australian system.)
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
My understanding, not leaning on anyone else: Ταύτην is the link to the preceding context which I call a contextualizer. It isn't the most salient constituent. Ταύτην does not form a constituent with ἀρχὴν so nothing is divided.
Yes, I'm looking at his later BART stuff, which appears to have a different analysis. This looks like a fair explanation of Levinsohn's 2000 analysis. I wonder why he changed his mind?
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
The traditional grammars taken collectively are somewhat confusing but if you are willing to muddle through them an approximation of clarity emerges. The idea that Ταύτην is moved forward is questionable. That concept can be traced at least as far back as Chomsky '57 (see movement in David Crystal, Dict. Lang. & Ling.). I have come to question some of the fundamental unspoken assumptions that linger just below the surface in NT Greek word order discussions and movement is one of them. Movement implies something akin to deep structure which combines with transformations. If you eliminate the idea of some fundamental prototypical word order then movement becomes unnecessary.
Yes, Chomsky's transformational / generative grammar is famous for movement, but not all grammars use that notion, especially not the functional grammar of Simon Dik that Levinsohn sort of follows. And generative grammar doesn't dealt with "prototypical" stuff. I'm not sure this explanation is helpful. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 1st, 2017, 11:20 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 2:08 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:09 am
Stephen Levinsohn analyzes this as ταύτην in pre-verbal focus, with the rest of it following the verb. I haven't looked at the context so whether that's a plausible analysis.
I can't quite render this in English, but perhaps this comes close to the sense as Levinsohn sees it?
Well, the most usual way in English to handle an element in focus is to emphasize it in situ, which doesn't always come across well in writing, unless readers are particularly attuned to the way the discourse is being developed. Nevertheless, there are a number of devices, such as cleft sentences (e.g., "It is ${focus} that ${background}."), that can be used in writing to more unambiguously signal the information structure. But this yields something awkward like "It is this that Jesus did (as) the first of his signs, ..." Let's look at some strategies in a couple of translations:
NRSV wrote:Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory;
In English, the normally expected place for focus is toward the end of a sentence, but the apposition, "the first of his signs," in effect created an ending, allowing for "this" to be in a good position for the focus. I think this is a fine attempt.
NET wrote:Jesus did this as the first of his miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee. In this way he revealed his glory,
Probably the closest of the translations to Levinsohn's analysis, the NET employs a very similar strategy to the NRSV but renders the apposition as a second complement for ἐποίησεν (here, as an "as"-phrase), which fits a split focus analysis.
NIV wrote:What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory;
I'm not sure what the NIV is doing here. They don't actually translate the ταύτην. What they do instead is to employ a pseudo-cleft construction, which performs the function of "What ${background} is ${focus}." So it looks like the NIV translators read the Greek with Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ... ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας as some kinds of topicalizing or contextualizing fragment, with ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων in focus. Nothing I've learned about Greek information structure would support that analysis.
LEB (NKJV, KJV) wrote:This beginning of signs Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee, and revealed his glory,
Here, the Lexham English Bible (which is like the NKJV except for the preposition in front of "Cana") preposes the full object constituent. This does convey some emphasis on the constituent, and the demonstrative "this" naturally attracts the accent. Although it works, it does seem to have a different analysis of the information structure of the sentence than Levinsohn. Preposing in English is best used for contrastive topics (which are like a topic-focus hybrid and their analysis is still somewhat controversial).
RSV, ESV wrote:This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory.
The RSV and ESV are employing a similar strategy as the LEB, but the use of apposition more unambiguously emphasizes the demonstrative.
This he did - the first of his signs - in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory.
Here you are closely following the word order of the Greek, even though English and Greek use word order different to convey things differently. It is a lot like the RSV/ESV, except the apposition is moved farther away from what it pertains to. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 1st, 2017, 7:05 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:52 pm
Verse 10, Focus+ JHN.2.10!7-JHN.2.10!9 Focus+ - τὸν καλὸν οἶνον Verse 10, Historical Present JHN.2.10!2 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 10, Referential PoD JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!5 Referential PoD - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος JHN.2.10!16 Referential PoD - σὺ Verse 10, Reported Speech JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!22 Reported Speech - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν τὸν ἐλάσσω σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι Verse 10, Situational PoD JHN.2.10!6 Situational PoD - πρῶτον JHN.2.10!12-JHN.2.10!13 Situational PoD - ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν Verse 11, Focus+ JHN.2.11!1 Focus+ - ταύτην Verse 11, Split Focal JHN.2.11!3-JHN.2.11!5 Split Focal - ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. I don't pretend to totally comprehend Levinsohn's concepts. Assuming that i was inclined to do topic - focus analysis on this passage, I would start looking for the focus element with word ἀρχὴν. But focus can be more than one word. So perhaps Ταύτην ... ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων could be understood as in focus. I am really not on this band wagon anymore so my thinking about it has become rusty. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 1st, 2017, 4:53 pm
 
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
 
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ
. Prof. Carlson is looking at something later from Levinsohn than Discourse Features NTG 2000, where on page 83 bottom this Ταύτην is underlined but not bold.
He may well be looking at this: http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/JohnBART.pdf The coloring is described here: http://www-01.sil.org/~levinsohns/Enhan ... playNT.pdf Some of the annotations are easier to see as text, let me try:
Verse 1, Focus+ JHN.2.1!6 Focus+ - γάμος Verse 1, Situational PoD JHN.2.1!2-JHN.2.1!5 Situational PoD - τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ Verse 3, Focus+ JHN.2.3!11 Focus+ - οἶνον Verse 3, Historical Present JHN.2.3!4 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 3, Reported Speech JHN.2.3!11-JHN.2.3!13 Reported Speech - οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν Verse 4, Historical Present JHN.2.4!2 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 4, Over-encoding JHN.2.4!4-JHN.2.4!5 Over-encoding - ὁ ἰησοῦς Verse 4, Reported Speech JHN.2.4!6-JHN.2.4!15 Reported Speech - τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί γύναι οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου Verse 5, Focus+ JHN.2.5!7-JHN.2.5!11 Focus+ - ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν Verse 5, Historical Present JHN.2.5!1 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 5, Over-encoding JHN.2.5!2-JHN.2.5!4 Over-encoding - ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ Verse 5, Reported Speech JHN.2.5!7-JHN.2.5!12 Reported Speech - ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑμῖν ποιήσατε Verse 6, Embedded Focus+ JHN.2.6!7-JHN.2.6!11 Embedded Focus+ - κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἰουδαίων Verse 7, Historical Present JHN.2.7!1 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 7, Reported Speech JHN.2.7!5-JHN.2.7!8 Reported Speech - γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος Verse 8, Articular Pronoun JHN.2.8!10 Articular Pronoun - οἱ Verse 8, Historical Present JHN.2.8!2 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 8, Reported Speech JHN.2.8!4-JHN.2.8!9 Reported Speech - ἀντλήσατε νῦν καὶ φέρετε τῷ ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ Verse 9, Embedded Focus+ JHN.2.9!8 Embedded Focus+ - οἶνον Verse 9, Focus+ JHN.2.9!15 Focus+ - οἱ JHN.2.9!17 Focus+ - διάκονοι Verse 9, Historical Present JHN.2.9!23 Historical Present - φωνεῖ Verse 9, Over-encoding JHN.2.9!4-JHN.2.9!5 Over-encoding - ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος JHN.2.9!26-JHN.2.9!27 Over-encoding - ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος Verse 9, Postposed them subject JHN.2.9!26-JHN.2.9!27 Postposed them subject - ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος Verse 9, Right-Dislocated JHN.2.9!19-JHN.2.9!22 Right-Dislocated - οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ Verse 9, Situational PoD JHN.2.9!1 Situational PoD - ὡς JHN.2.9!3-JHN.2.9!14 Situational PoD - ἐγεύσατο ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον γεγενημένον καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν Verse 10, Embedded Focus+ JHN.2.10!8 Embedded Focus+ - καλὸν JHN.2.10!19 Embedded Focus+ - καλὸν Verse 10, Focus+ JHN.2.10!7-JHN.2.10!9 Focus+ - τὸν καλὸν οἶνον Verse 10, Historical Present JHN.2.10!2 Historical Present - λέγει Verse 10, Referential PoD JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!5 Referential PoD - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος JHN.2.10!16 Referential PoD - σὺ Verse 10, Reported Speech JHN.2.10!4-JHN.2.10!22 Reported Speech - πᾶς ἄνθρωπος πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον τίθησιν καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν τὸν ἐλάσσω σὺ τετήρηκας τὸν καλὸν οἶνον ἕως ἄρτι Verse 10, Situational PoD JHN.2.10!6 Situational PoD - πρῶτον JHN.2.10!12-JHN.2.10!13 Situational PoD - ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν Verse 11, Focus+ JHN.2.11!1 Focus+ - ταύτην Verse 11, Split Focal JHN.2.11!3-JHN.2.11!5 Split Focal - ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων
And yes, this is something I'm looking at right now ;-> Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 1st, 2017, 3:52 pm
 
John 2:11 Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ
. Prof. Carlson is looking at something later from Levinsohn than Discourse Features NTG 2000, where on page 83 bottom this Ταύτην is underlined but not bold. My understanding, not leaning on anyone else: Ταύτην is the link to the preceding context which I call a contextualizer. It isn't the most salient constituent. Ταύτην does not form a constituent with ἀρχὴν so nothing is divided. The traditional grammars taken collectively are somewhat confusing but if you are willing to muddle through them an approximation of clarity emerges. The idea that Ταύτην is moved forward is questionable. That concept can be traced at least as far back as Chomsky '57 (see movement in David Crystal, Dict. Lang. & Ling.). I have come to question some of the fundamental unspoken assumptions that linger just below the surface in NT Greek word order discussions and movement is one of them. Movement implies something akin to deep structure which combines with transformations. If you eliminate the idea of some fundamental prototypical word order then movement becomes unnecessary. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 1st, 2017, 3:39 pm
 
Stephen Hughes wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:51 am
Cf. Luke 2:10 (Sorry I can't quote it).
Luke 2:10 wrote:καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος· Μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ,
What parallel do you see? My poor blind eyes don't see a split focus here. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 1st, 2017, 2:15 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
April 1st, 2017, 8:09 am
Stephen Levinsohn analyzes this as ταύτην in pre-verbal focus, with the rest of it following the verb. I haven't looked at the context so whether that's a plausible analysis.
I can't quite render this in English, but perhaps this comes close to the sense as Levinsohn sees it?
This he did - the first of his signs - in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 1st, 2017, 2:08 pm
Cf. Luke 2:10 (Sorry I can't quote it). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 1st, 2017, 8:51 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
March 31st, 2017, 3:05 pm
 
John 2:11 wrote:Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
Why do you think the constituent is split in this verse?
(NB: Some definitions of constituency require contiguity, so they can't be split by definition.) Stephen Levinsohn analyzes this as ταύτην in pre-verbal focus, with the rest of it following the verb. I haven't looked at the context so whether that's a plausible analysis. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 1st, 2017, 8:09 am
 
Robert Crowe wrote:
March 31st, 2017, 8:38 pm
Essentially, Wallace takes ταύτην . . . ἀρχήν not as a single constituent, but constituents in an Object Complement construction. 'Jesus made this to be the first of his signs' [GGBB, p187 in a discussion of Jn 4.54, and n40]
Robert, Ignoreing the english offered by Wallace, the syntax appears to be noncontroversial. I looked in all the usual places, ATR p701-702,771; N. Turner, p192, BDF #292, H.A.W. Meyer, H. Alford, en loc. The absence of an article with ἀρχήν is the deciding factor. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — April 1st, 2017, 1:37 am
 
Jonathan Robie wrote:
March 31st, 2017, 3:05 pm
... using o.1 to indicate that there is just one object, object #1, which is split (as opposed to two distinct objects): o.1 Ταύτην ... v ἐποίησεν o.1 ... ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων s ὁ Ἰησοῦς adv ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας Why do you think the constituent is split in this verse?
Ταύτην (οὗτος) is a contextualiser so in word order comes first. ποιέω, ἀρχή (in the sense of "start", rather than "rulership"), and σημεῖα (in the sense of a small specific miracle) are all low-context, specific words. ὁ Ἰησοῦς is a specific person and ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας is added detail. The broadest most abstract or general thing is said first the most specific thing comes last. In terms of fancy tricks with fonts you could Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. Or something like that. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 1st, 2017, 1:28 am
Essentially, Wallace takes ταύτην . . . ἀρχήν not as a single constituent, but constituents in an Object Complement construction. 'Jesus made this to be the first of his signs' [GGBB, p187 in a discussion of Jn 4.54, and n40] Statistics: Posted by Robert Crowe — March 31st, 2017, 8:38 pm
FWIW, Wallace GGBB p242 n66 discusses this passage, although he doesn't directly address your question. google: syntax "John 2:11" Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — March 31st, 2017, 4:04 pm
 
John 2:11 wrote:Ταύτην ἐποίησεν ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐφανέρωσεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
As I read this, Ταύτην ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων is the object of ἐποίησεν, but this object is split by the verb. So if you gather the object into one place, it looks like this: o Ταύτην ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων v ἐποίησεν s ὁ Ἰησοῦς adv ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας or in sentence order, using o.1 to indicate that there is just one object, object #1, which is split (as opposed to two distinct objects): o.1 Ταύτην ... v ἐποίησεν o.1 ... ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων s ὁ Ἰησοῦς adv ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας Why do you think the constituent is split in this verse? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 31st, 2017, 3:05 pm
πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 20th, 2014, 1:28 pm
 
2 John 11 wrote:ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς. The NA28 text of this verse has an unusual position of the γάρ, after both ὁ λέγων instead between them, as read in the Byzantine text (ὁ γὰρ λέγων [αὐτῷ] χαίρειν, with a split within this textual tradition on whether to read αὐτῷ). I'm not interested in adjudicating which text is more original, but I am interested in teasing out whatever differences may be implied by the different word order. Even if we did not have the Byzantine reading, the exegete is still confronted with the unusual placement of the γάρ. So, what significance, if any, does this placement of γάρ have in the NA28 text?
The physical position of γὰρ seems fine in either position. I would say one position is more formal, but both are acceptable. If you take ὁ λέγων as a unit, then the following γὰρ seems to have an acceptable postpositive position. Whenever we read John, we know to be careful with his syntax and grammar; it appears, at times, a bit sloppy, but it does nevertheless get the point across. We all expect writers to be grammarians, but that is just not the case. Some writes just struggle with grammar as others struggle with physics. The placement is not wrong, perhaps crude is a better description. Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — January 20th, 2014, 12:46 pm
 
2 John 11 wrote: ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς.
The NA28 text of this verse has an unusual position of the γάρ, after both ὁ λέγων instead between them, as read in the Byzantine text (ὁ γὰρ λέγων [αὐτῷ] χαίρειν, with a split within this textual tradition on whether to read αὐτῷ). I'm not interested in adjudicating which text is more original, but I am interested in teasing out whatever differences may be implied by the different word order. Even if we did not have the Byzantine reading, the exegete is still confronted with the unusual placement of the γάρ. So, what significance, if any, does this placement of γάρ have in the NA28 text? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 20th, 2014, 4:53 am