Romans 2:4

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Byron & Linetta Knutson byronk at open.org
Thu Feb 6 03:14:29 EST 2003

 

[] number of AW, EW, and OO verbs in NT [] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 I was wondering why the string of genitives in this verse rather than accusatives (excluding THS CRHSTOTHTOS)? Is there a simple answer I’m missing at this time of night?Romans 2:4 H TOU PLOUTOU THS CRHSTOTHTOS AUTOU KAI. THS ANOCHS KAI. THS MAKROQUMIAS KATAFRONEIS AGNOWNByron Knutson

 

[] number of AW, EW, and OO verbs in NT[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Feb 6 06:47:25 EST 2003

 

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 [] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 At 12:14 AM -0800 2/6/03, Byron & Linetta Knutson wrote:>I was wondering why the string of genitives in this verse rather than>accusatives (excluding THS CRHSTOTHTOS)? Is there a simple answer I’m>missing at this time of night?> >Romans 2:4 H TOU PLOUTOU THS CRHSTOTHTOS AUTOU KAI. THS ANOCHS KAI. THS>MAKROQUMIAS KATAFRONEIS AGNOWNKATAFRONEW, like many KATA-prefixed verbs, takes genitive complement; eachof these genitives (except AUTOU, which depends upon the others,CRHSTOTHTOS directly, ANOCHS and MAKROQUMIAS implicitly) is the object ofKATAFRONEIS.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Byron & Linetta Knutson byronk at open.org
Thu Feb 6 12:41:44 EST 2003

 

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 [] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Thanks Carl. I thot of that possibility, but saw no direct statement in thethe lexicons I checked. I should have checked the examples more closely.Is there a source somewhere that lists al the NT words that take an objectin something other than the Accusative?Is there a possibility of having some of the header materials deleted in thenew digest format? Here is a typical example of what I mean:_______________________________Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:21:19 -0500From: Albert Pietersma <albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca>To: at ntresources.comCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] LXX perplexity: Wever on Dt 4:1Message-ID: <3E40126E.E473188E at sympatico.ca>References: <20030204190503.6122.qmail at mailshell.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type=”54455854″;x-mac-creator=”4D4F5353″MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitPrecedence: listMessage: 2__________________________________This is the normal, occassionally we get worse ones as in this post:——————————Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:45:44 -0600From: “Jim” <bailey at ckt.net>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: []Message-ID: <001401c2cbd5$fc8c2230$47f331d8 at default>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=”iso-8859-1″MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printablePrecedence: listMessage: 3Please continue Subscription and THANKS. From cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu MonFeb 3 21:39:44 2003Return-Path: <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Delivered-To: at lists.ibiblio.orgReceived: from collamer.mail.atl.earthlink.net(collamer.mail.atl.earthlink.net [199.174.114.9])by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC922001Ffor < at lists.ibiblio.org>;Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:39:44 -0500 (EST)Received: from sdn-ap-023tnnashp0343.dialsprint.net ([65.181.9.89])by collamer.mail.atl.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)id 18ft0s-0005oP-00for at lists.ibiblio.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:40:42 -0500Mime-Version: 1.0X-Sender: cwconrad at mail.ioa.com (Unverified)Message-Id: <p05210300ba64d6c77b6a@[64.92.94.70]>Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:35:45 -0500To: “‘Biblical Greek'” < at lists.ibiblio.org>From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>Subject: Re: [] SE in Mark 1:24Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”iso-8859-1″Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableX-BeenThere: at lists.ibiblio.orgX-Mailman-Version: 2.1Precedence: listList-Id: Biblical Greek <.lists.ibiblio.org>List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/>,<mailto:-request at lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>List-Archive: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/>List-Post: <mailto: at lists.ibiblio.org>List-Help: <mailto:-request at lists.ibiblio.org?subject=help>List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/>,<mailto:-request at lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>I think this was intended for the list rather than for me alone; ourlist-software is configured to send replies to list-messages to theoriginal sender only; if you want a reply to go to the list also you haveto cc it or fix your settings in your own mail program as “reply to all.”Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:36:41 -0600Subject: Re: [] SE in Mark 1:24=46rom: Steven Lo Vullo <slovullo at mac.com>To: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 06:39 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>> I can’t see where Smyth 2668 supports your point? He seems to be>> discussing the>> use of the relative pronoun instead of the indefinite relative or the>> interrogative, and, unless I am missing something (which is quite>> possible),>> does not reference whether or not the pronoun should be considered a>> predicate>> or subject. Whether or no, this is one of those grammatical points>> that could>> be read either way, I should think.> > Yes, Smyth =A72668 is the wrong reference, although it does cite the> construction in question and note that OIDA SE hOS EI and OUK OIDA SE> hOSTIS EI are the standard patterns–which is the primary point I was> referring to. I would still maintain that the interrogative word TIS,> although first in its clause as interrogative words most commonly are,> is a> predicate nominative rather than the subject; perhaps that would be> more> obvious if it were “I know WHAT you are” than as “I know WHO you are.”There is a good section in Wallace (pp. 42ff.) on distinguishing thesubject from the predicate nominative. His general principle is thatthe subject is the **known** entity. The pronoun (explicit or impliedin the verb) trumps all. It will be the subject regardless of thegrammatical tag of the other substantive. The only exception is theinterrogative pronoun, which will always be the predicate nominative.He states:”The reason that personal, demonstrative, and relative pronounsfunction differently than interrogative pronouns is this: the formerare a substitute for something already revealed in the context (a knownquantity), while the latter are anticipatory of a substantive not yetrevealed (an unknown quantity). One refers back to an antecedent; theother looks forward to a postcedent” (p. 44 and n. 24).=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DSteven R. Lo VulloMadison, WI</x-flowed>——————————What I wish it were is pared something like this:————————————————-From: Albert Pietersma <albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca>Subject: Re: [] LXX perplexity: Wever on Dt 4:1Message: 2————————————————-Thanks,Byron Knutson—– Original Message —–From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>To: “Byron & Linetta Knutson” <byronk at open.org>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:47 AMSubject: Re: [] Genitives in Rom. 2:4> At 12:14 AM -0800 2/6/03, Byron & Linetta Knutson wrote:> >I was wondering why the string of genitives in this verse rather than> >accusatives (excluding THS CRHSTOTHTOS)? Is there a simple answer I’m> >missing at this time of night?> >> >Romans 2:4 H TOU PLOUTOU THS CRHSTOTHTOS AUTOU KAI. THS ANOCHS KAI. THS> >MAKROQUMIAS KATAFRONEIS AGNOWN> > KATAFRONEW, like many KATA-prefixed verbs, takes genitive complement; each> of these genitives (except AUTOU, which depends upon the others,> CRHSTOTHTOS directly, ANOCHS and MAKROQUMIAS implicitly) is the object of> KATAFRONEIS.>> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/>

 

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Feb 6 15:43:52 EST 2003

 

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4 [] Septuagint: Online Greek text At 9:41 AM -0800 2/6/03, Byron & Linetta Knutson wrote:>Thanks Carl. I thot of that possibility, but saw no direct statement in the>the lexicons I checked. I should have checked the examples more closely.> >Is there a source somewhere that lists al the NT words that take an object>in something other than the Accusative?There may be, but this is something that I learned bit by bit over theyears: that verbs of sensation often take a genitive object, verbs ofremembering and mental action often take a genitive, verbs in KATA- oftentake a genitive, verbs that intransitive in Greek, even if transitive andtaking a direct object in English, will normally take a dative complementin Greek, etc. These are things one doesn’t really learn from memorizationof lists so much as from doing lots and lots of reading and taking somepains to consult the reference books/lexica and get answers to questionsthat don’t find answers directly in the context.>Is there a possibility of having some of the header materials deleted in the>new digest format? Here is a typical example of what I mean:I think your point is clear, which is why I’ve deleted most of your lengthycatalog of examples. I don’t think this is something that our list softwarecan help with: it adds the distinctive list-headers, the others are addedeither by yours or others’ mail-programs and by each link in the internetas it sends a message on from one station to another. You may, however,have something in your own mail program, as those of us who use Eudorahave, that represses or HIDES what Eudora calls “blah!” headers; I’ve fixedmy settings so that I usually don’t get more than Date/From/To/CC/ andSubject. But that’s a matter of the settings of each individual mailprogram. If your mail isn’t filtered through a good mail program, then youprobably have headers running far longer than a messaage.>_______________________________>Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 14:21:19 -0500>From: Albert Pietersma <albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca>>To: at ntresources.com>Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] LXX perplexity: Wever on Dt 4:1>Message-ID: <3E40126E.E473188E at sympatico.ca>>References: <20030204190503.6122.qmail at mailshell.com>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type=”54455854″;>x-mac-creator=”4D4F5353″>MIME-Version: 1.0>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit>Precedence: list>Message: 2>__________________________________> >This is the normal, occassionally we get worse ones as in this post:>——————————> >Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:45:44 -0600>From: “Jim” <bailey at ckt.net>>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>>Subject: []>Message-ID: <001401c2cbd5$fc8c2230$47f331d8 at default>>Content-Type: text/plain;>charset=”iso-8859-1″>MIME-Version: 1.0>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable>Precedence: list>Message: 3— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Genitives in Rom. 2:4[] Septuagint: Online Greek text

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>