Galatians 4:30

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Sun May 30 20:06:10 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? GreetingsThe contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective Present in Gal 4:30? Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession? Thirdly, I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a simple command, any thoughts?Thank You for you attention to my rather ponderous quesitonBrian Tucker, M.A.Riverview, MI

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional?Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Sun May 30 20:06:10 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional? Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? GreetingsThe contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective Present in Gal 4:30? Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession? Thirdly, I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a simple command, any thoughts?Thank You for you attention to my rather ponderous quesitonBrian Tucker, M.A.Riverview, MI

 

Gal 4:29 What type of conditional?Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 31 08:15:47 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? At 6:36 AM -0400 5/31/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:I find it easier personally to see the whole verse discussed before mewhile considering the question:Gal 4:30 ALLA TI LEGEI hH GRAFH? EKBALE THN PAIDISKHN KAI TON hUION AUTHS:OU GAR MH KLHRONOMHSEI hO hUIOS THS PAIDISKHS META TOU hUIOU THS ELEUQERIAS.Let me just note here that our most commonly-used conventionaltransliteration scheme uses H for Eta rather than A (which we generally useto represent Alpha); I gather that you’re using A because of the Englishlong-A pronunciation.>The contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best>describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it>still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective>Present in Gal 4:30?I don’t see any particular value in terming this a “perfective present”;that makes more sense either with such verbs as hHKW or PAREIMI that have asemantic force of completed action (or classical Greek ERRW), or theparticular usage of EIMI in a context implying that it must be perfective(such as TOSOUTWi CRONWi with EIMI in John 14:9). But in Gal 4:30 I seenothing implicit in the phrasing to underscore the perfective aspect. Theuse of the present LEGEI with hH GRAFH is by no means uncommon.>Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS>PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of>relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare>and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is>it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession?Here too I have to say I see no point in seeking a category in which topigeonhole what I take to be a simple instance of the standard adnominalgenitive where the meaning of the phrase created by the genitive dependenton a noun is perfectly clear. Call it “pertinentive” or “possessive” andhave done with it.>Thirdly,>I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the>reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a>future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE>position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking>that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a>simple command, any thoughts?I believe this is a Semitism with imperatival force; one does notordinarily find OU MH with the future in classical Attic but it is commonin the LXX, from which this text is being cited–my recollection is thatthis is the way the LXX translators conveyed an infinitive absoluteconstruction (is that the right term? I know very little Hebrew grammar).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16?

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 31 08:15:47 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present? EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16? At 6:36 AM -0400 5/31/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:I find it easier personally to see the whole verse discussed before mewhile considering the question:Gal 4:30 ALLA TI LEGEI hH GRAFH? EKBALE THN PAIDISKHN KAI TON hUION AUTHS:OU GAR MH KLHRONOMHSEI hO hUIOS THS PAIDISKHS META TOU hUIOU THS ELEUQERIAS.Let me just note here that our most commonly-used conventionaltransliteration scheme uses H for Eta rather than A (which we generally useto represent Alpha); I gather that you’re using A because of the Englishlong-A pronunciation.>The contextual (introductory formula) perfective present seems to best>describe LEGEI this way. That is, the statement was spoken in the past, it>still speaks today and is binding on the hearers. Is LEGEI a Perfective>Present in Gal 4:30?I don’t see any particular value in terming this a “perfective present”;that makes more sense either with such verbs as hHKW or PAREIMI that have asemantic force of completed action (or classical Greek ERRW), or theparticular usage of EIMI in a context implying that it must be perfective(such as TOSOUTWi CRONWi with EIMI in John 14:9). But in Gal 4:30 I seenothing implicit in the phrasing to underscore the perfective aspect. Theuse of the present LEGEI with hH GRAFH is by no means uncommon.>Secondly, the two genitive phrases (h hUIOS TAS>PAIDISKAS and TOU hUIOU TAS ELEUTHERAS seem to be genitives of>relationship. I am not sure because genitives of relationship are so rare>and I don’t know if it meets the level of acceptance of this type here. Is>it a genitive of relationship or a simple genitive of possession?Here too I have to say I see no point in seeking a category in which topigeonhole what I take to be a simple instance of the standard adnominalgenitive where the meaning of the phrase created by the genitive dependenton a noun is perfectly clear. Call it “pertinentive” or “possessive” andhave done with it.>Thirdly,>I am interested in the presence of OU MA before KLARONOMASEI, what is the>reason of both, does it have anything to do with seeing KLARONOMASEI as a>future active indicative or an aorist active imperative? Fourthly, EKBALE>position in the sentence and in the argument is exceptional, I am thinking>that it is a permissive imperative or a conditional imperative instead of a>simple command, any thoughts?I believe this is a Semitism with imperatival force; one does notordinarily find OU MH with the future in classical Attic but it is commonin the LXX, from which this text is being cited–my recollection is thatthis is the way the LXX translators conveyed an infinitive absoluteconstruction (is that the right term? I know very little Hebrew grammar).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Gal 4:30 LEGEI as a Perfective Present?EAN MH = but in Gal 2:16?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>