PLEIW in Matt 26:53 Jean-Francois Racine Jean-Francois_Racine at uqac.uquebec.ca
Thu May 20 20:46:13 EDT 1999
Keeping up with NT Greek after class Philippians 1.10 In Matt 26:53, one finds the clause PLEIW [H] DWDEKA LEGIWNAS AGGELWN.1. Is PLEIW a comparative here? If it is the case, what is the point ofcomparison?2. What is the grammatical explanation of the presence of [H] in severalMSS such as C E W Delta Pi Omega fam1 fam13 33 565?3. Blass/Debrunner/Funk par. 185 speaks of genitive of comparison, butstill, I have difficulty to see what is the point of comparison.Could someone shed some light on this point?Jean-Francois Racine
Keeping up with NT Greek after classPhilippians 1.10
PLEIW in Matt 26:53 Jean-Francois Racine Jean-Francois_Racine at uqac.uquebec.ca
Thu May 20 20:46:13 EDT 1999
Keeping up with NT Greek after class Philippians 1.10 In Matt 26:53, one finds the clause PLEIW [H] DWDEKA LEGIWNAS AGGELWN.1. Is PLEIW a comparative here? If it is the case, what is the point ofcomparison?2. What is the grammatical explanation of the presence of [H] in severalMSS such as C E W Delta Pi Omega fam1 fam13 33 565?3. Blass/Debrunner/Funk par. 185 speaks of genitive of comparison, butstill, I have difficulty to see what is the point of comparison.Could someone shed some light on this point?Jean-Francois Racine
Keeping up with NT Greek after classPhilippians 1.10
PLEIW in Matt 26:53 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 21 06:56:00 EDT 1999
Philippians 1.10 Philippians 1.10 At 8:46 PM -0400 5/20/99, Jean-Francois Racine wrote:>In Matt 26:53, one finds the clause PLEIW [H] DWDEKA LEGIWNAS AGGELWN.> >1. Is PLEIW a comparative here? If it is the case, what is the point of>comparison?> >2. What is the grammatical explanation of the presence of [H] in several>MSS such as C E W Delta Pi Omega fam1 fam13 33 565?> >3. Blass/Debrunner/Funk par. 185 speaks of genitive of comparison, but>still, I have difficulty to see what is the point of comparison.> >Could someone shed some light on this point?> >Jean-Francois Racine(1) Yes: PLEIW is indeed comparative–neuter plural accusative, I think(contracted from PLEIOSA after loss of intervocalic sigma, -IOS- being thealternative comparative infix equivalent to what we are taught–wrongly–isthe more common comparative infix -ION-, which would have yielded the formPLEIONA for neuter plural nom./acc. One of my peeves about the standardteaching of Greek grammar is that these alternative forms of comparativesin -IOS- are alluded to in footnotes in the grammars as poor relations,when in fact the -IOS- forms are really more common in Attic and Ionic thanthe -ION- forms–and Koine, it should be remembered, is essentially Ionicdialect with a somewhat lax Attic grammar.(2/3) The phrase has to mean, does it not, “more THAN twelve legions ofangels”? Then “twelve legions of angels” is the element of comparison; thestandard grammatical construction for comparison is to put H (originallyand literally “or”, but used as a disjunctive conjunction in comparisonalso) if both items in the comparison are in the same case, or to put thesecond item of comparison into an ablatival genitive “of comparison.”There remains a question here about why the comparison doesn’t need the H;here’s what Smyth (1920) at the Perseus site says:1074. In statements of number and measure ê may be omitted after theadverbial comparatives pleon (plein) more, ela_tton (meion) less, which donot alter their case and number: pempei ouk ela_tton deka pherontas pur hesends not less than ten men carrying fire Xen. Hell. 4.5.4, polis pleonpentakischi_liôn andrôn a city of more than 5000 men 5. 3. 16. Even when êis kept, pleon (plein), etc., remains unchanged: en plein ( = pleiosin) êdia_kosiois etesin in more than 200 years Dem. 24.141, toxota_s plein êeikosi mu_riadas more bowmen than 20 myriads Xen. Cyrop. 2.1.6.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/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2674 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990521/e19a1bf2/attachment.bin
Philippians 1.10Philippians 1.10
PLEIW in Matt 26:53 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 21 06:56:00 EDT 1999
Philippians 1.10 Philippians 1.10 At 8:46 PM -0400 5/20/99, Jean-Francois Racine wrote:>In Matt 26:53, one finds the clause PLEIW [H] DWDEKA LEGIWNAS AGGELWN.> >1. Is PLEIW a comparative here? If it is the case, what is the point of>comparison?> >2. What is the grammatical explanation of the presence of [H] in several>MSS such as C E W Delta Pi Omega fam1 fam13 33 565?> >3. Blass/Debrunner/Funk par. 185 speaks of genitive of comparison, but>still, I have difficulty to see what is the point of comparison.> >Could someone shed some light on this point?> >Jean-Francois Racine(1) Yes: PLEIW is indeed comparative–neuter plural accusative, I think(contracted from PLEIOSA after loss of intervocalic sigma, -IOS- being thealternative comparative infix equivalent to what we are taught–wrongly–isthe more common comparative infix -ION-, which would have yielded the formPLEIONA for neuter plural nom./acc. One of my peeves about the standardteaching of Greek grammar is that these alternative forms of comparativesin -IOS- are alluded to in footnotes in the grammars as poor relations,when in fact the -IOS- forms are really more common in Attic and Ionic thanthe -ION- forms–and Koine, it should be remembered, is essentially Ionicdialect with a somewhat lax Attic grammar.(2/3) The phrase has to mean, does it not, “more THAN twelve legions ofangels”? Then “twelve legions of angels” is the element of comparison; thestandard grammatical construction for comparison is to put H (originallyand literally “or”, but used as a disjunctive conjunction in comparisonalso) if both items in the comparison are in the same case, or to put thesecond item of comparison into an ablatival genitive “of comparison.”There remains a question here about why the comparison doesn’t need the H;here’s what Smyth (1920) at the Perseus site says:1074. In statements of number and measure ê may be omitted after theadverbial comparatives pleon (plein) more, ela_tton (meion) less, which donot alter their case and number: pempei ouk ela_tton deka pherontas pur hesends not less than ten men carrying fire Xen. Hell. 4.5.4, polis pleonpentakischi_liôn andrôn a city of more than 5000 men 5. 3. 16. Even when êis kept, pleon (plein), etc., remains unchanged: en plein ( = pleiosin) êdia_kosiois etesin in more than 200 years Dem. 24.141, toxota_s plein êeikosi mu_riadas more bowmen than 20 myriads Xen. Cyrop. 2.1.6.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/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 2674 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990521/e19a1bf2/attachment.bin
Philippians 1.10Philippians 1.10