Stephen, perfect explanation. I got it. In the case of Acts 26:16b-17, I should have known that the relative pronoun, as an anaphoric pronoun like "this", "that", "it", "they", etc, can refer to anything that has been introduced to the context so far, as long as the reader can identify the referent. I should have remembered the class I once took about "discourse analysis" ^^ Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 5:20 am
Stephen, thanks for the reference. I read it.
Carl's explanation makes a perfect sense, though I did not know the term
constructio ad sensum.
But in my case, I am asking how the following two cases would be different:
(1) EK TOUS LAOU KAI EK TWN EQNWN, EIS hOUS EGW....
(2) EK TOUS LAOU KAI TWN EQNWN, EIS hOUS EGW ..
In the case of (2), the antecedent is clear. In the case of (1), it is not clear because EK is repeated.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 9th, 2014, 6:09 am
In Acts 26L16b-17, we have:
EIS TOUTO GAR WFQHN SOI, .....
EXAIROUMENOS SE EK TOU LAOU
KAI EK TWN EQNWN,
EIS hOUS EGW APOSTELLW SE.
Is there any grammatical reason that the antecedent of the relative pronoun hOUS
should be TWN EQNWN, rather than both TOU LAOU and TWN EQNWN?
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 9th, 2014, 12:15 am