hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sat Jan 19 22:59:41 EST 2002
AUTOS/AUTOU hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Hi all:Rom 6.3: hOSOI EBAPTISQHMEN EIS CRISTON IHSOUN, EIS TON QANATON AUTOU EBAPTISQHMEN;This is probably a simple question, but for some reason I can’t get a grip on it. Does the correlative pronoun hOSOI serve as the subject of both occurrences of EBAPTISQHMEN? Or is there another, implied, subject (other than the “we” inherent in the verb) in the second occurrence of EBAPTISQHMEN that answers to hOSOI?==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
AUTOS/AUTOUhOSOI in Rom 6.3
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jan 20 00:05:41 EST 2002
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 hOSOI in Rom 6.3 on 1/19/02 7:59 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> Rom 6.3: hOSOI EBAPTISQHMEN EIS CRISTON IHSOUN, EIS TON QANATON AUTOU> EBAPTISQHMEN;> > This is probably a simple question, but for some reason I can’t get a> grip on it. Does the correlative pronoun hOSOI serve as the subject of> both occurrences of EBAPTISQHMEN? Or is there another, implied, subject> (other than the “we” inherent in the verb) in the second occurrence of> EBAPTISQHMEN that answers to hOSOI?Steve,Depends on what you mean by “subject.” As you well know, in parallelism(chaistic or otherwise) it is customary to elide constituents in the secondcolon which can be assumed from the first colon. This is just good writing,according to E. Hemingway, one should always leave out everything that canbe taken for granted.So if by “subject” you mean the syntactical subject, I would say that hOSOIis not the syntactical subject of the second colon. The second colon useszero anaphora (verb inflection for person) to bind the second colon to thefirst colon. This is a rhetorical technique that promotes cohesion withinthe parallel structure.greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
hOSOI in Rom 6.3hOSOI in Rom 6.3
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jan 20 09:13:28 EST 2002
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 hOSOI in Rom 6.3 At 9:05 PM -0800 1/19/02, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>on 1/19/02 7:59 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> >> Rom 6.3: hOSOI EBAPTISQHMEN EIS CRISTON IHSOUN, EIS TON QANATON AUTOU>> EBAPTISQHMEN;>> >> This is probably a simple question, but for some reason I can’t get a>> grip on it. Does the correlative pronoun hOSOI serve as the subject of>> both occurrences of EBAPTISQHMEN? Or is there another, implied, subject>> (other than the “we” inherent in the verb) in the second occurrence of>> EBAPTISQHMEN that answers to hOSOI?> >Steve,> >Depends on what you mean by “subject.” As you well know, in parallelism>(chaistic or otherwise) it is customary to elide constituents in the second>colon which can be assumed from the first colon. This is just good writing,>according to E. Hemingway, one should always leave out everything that can>be taken for granted.> >So if by “subject” you mean the syntactical subject, I would say that hOSOI>is not the syntactical subject of the second colon. The second colon uses>zero anaphora (verb inflection for person) to bind the second colon to the>first colon. This is a rhetorical technique that promotes cohesion within>the parallel structure.Clay is giving you a Discourse Analysis answer to what I would term anidiomatic or word-order question; I wouldn’t disagree with anything Clayhas said, except that it wouldn’t use the phrase “elide constituents” butsay rather the subject of the main clause is left in ellipsis. Englishexample I was taught: “Who steals my purse steals trash.”Smyth (at Perseus):§2509. Omission of the Antecedent to a Relative.–The demonstrative pronounantecedent to a relative is often omitted: either when it is in the samecase as the relative, or in a different case from the relative. Theomission occurs when the antecedent expresses the general idea of person orthing, and often when the relative clause precedes.egô de kai (houtoi) hôn kratô menoumen but I and those whom I command willremain X. C. 5.1.26, kalon to thnêiskein hois (for toutois hois) hubrin tozên pherei death is sweet to those to whom life brings contumely Men. Sent.291, legô pantas [p. 565] eispherein aph’ hosôn (for apo tosoutôn hosa)hekastos echei I say that all must contribute according to the ability ofeach (from such means as each man has) D. 2.31.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
hOSOI in Rom 6.3hOSOI in Rom 6.3
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sun Jan 20 15:13:32 EST 2002
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Biblical Greek crossword puzzle On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 08:13 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>> Depends on what you mean by “subject.” As you well know, in parallelism>> (chaistic or otherwise) it is customary to elide constituents in the >> second>> colon which can be assumed from the first colon. This is just good >> writing,>> according to E. Hemingway, one should always leave out everything that >> can>> be taken for granted.>> >> So if by “subject” you mean the syntactical subject, I would say that >> hOSOI>> is not the syntactical subject of the second colon. The second colon >> uses>> zero anaphora (verb inflection for person) to bind the second colon to >> the>> first colon. This is a rhetorical technique that promotes cohesion >> within>> the parallel structure.> > Clay is giving you a Discourse Analysis answer to what I would term an> idiomatic or word-order question; I wouldn’t disagree with anything Clay> has said, except that it wouldn’t use the phrase “elide constituents” > but> say rather the subject of the main clause is left in ellipsis. English> example I was taught: “Who steals my purse steals trash.”> > Smyth (at Perseus):> > §2509. Omission of the Antecedent to a Relative.–The demonstrative > pronoun> antecedent to a relative is often omitted: either when it is in the same> case as the relative, or in a different case from the relative. The> omission occurs when the antecedent expresses the general idea of > person or> thing, and often when the relative clause precedes.> > egô de kai (houtoi) hôn kratô menoumen but I and those whom I command > will> remain X. C. 5.1.26, kalon to thnêiskein hois (for toutois hois) hubrin > to> zên pherei death is sweet to those to whom life brings contumely Men. > Sent.> 291, legô pantas [p. 565] eispherein aph’ hosôn (for apo tosoutôn hosa)> hekastos echei I say that all must contribute according to the ability > of> each (from such means as each man has) D. 2.31.Carl and Clay:Thank you for your responses. Forgive more for asking a few more (probably bone-headed) questions.(1) Would I be safe to assume that, syntactically speaking, the correlative pronoun functions approximately like the relative pronoun, agreeing in gender and number with an “antecedent,” whether explicit or implied? I realize that the correlative pronoun may precede its “antecedent,” so I am using the term loosely, in the sense that the correlative is dependent on the main clause.(2) Smyth seems to be saying that the elliptical antecedent is a demonstrative pronoun. This was actually my first thought in dealing with Rom 6.3, and the conclusion I came to with regard to Rom 3.19 (hOSA LEGEI … [TAUTA] LALEI). This seems to fit well for Rom 3.19, since the elliptical TAUTA is the object of the verb. But in Rom 6.3 it seems awkward to imagine a hOUTOI as the subject of the first person plural EBAPTISQHMEN. Is this just because I am thinking in English? Would it be natural Greek for a demonstrative pronoun to be the subject of a first person plural verb? Or would the personal pronoun hHMEIS be a better candidate, at least in Rom 6.3?Thanks for your patience. The reason this is so important to me is that I am presently diagramming Romans. Though I realize things are not always as “tidy” as we would like, still I want to represent the syntactical relationships as accurately as possible.==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
hOSOI in Rom 6.3Biblical Greek crossword puzzle
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jan 20 20:20:17 EST 2002
Biblical Greek crossword puzzle Biblical Greek crossword puzzle At 2:13 PM -0600 1/20/02, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 08:13 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >>> Depends on what you mean by “subject.” As you well know, in parallelism>>> (chaistic or otherwise) it is customary to elide constituents in the>>> second>>> colon which can be assumed from the first colon. This is just good>>> writing,>>> according to E. Hemingway, one should always leave out everything that>>> can>>> be taken for granted.>>> >>> So if by “subject” you mean the syntactical subject, I would say that>>> hOSOI>>> is not the syntactical subject of the second colon. The second colon>>> uses>>> zero anaphora (verb inflection for person) to bind the second colon to>>> the>>> first colon. This is a rhetorical technique that promotes cohesion>>> within>>> the parallel structure.>> >> Clay is giving you a Discourse Analysis answer to what I would term an>> idiomatic or word-order question; I wouldn’t disagree with anything Clay>> has said, except that it wouldn’t use the phrase “elide constituents”>> but>> say rather the subject of the main clause is left in ellipsis. English>> example I was taught: “Who steals my purse steals trash.”>> >> Smyth (at Perseus):>> >> §2509. Omission of the Antecedent to a Relative.–The demonstrative>> pronoun>> antecedent to a relative is often omitted: either when it is in the same>> case as the relative, or in a different case from the relative. The>> omission occurs when the antecedent expresses the general idea of>> person or>> thing, and often when the relative clause precedes.>> >> egô de kai (houtoi) hôn kratô menoumen but I and those whom I command>> will>> remain X. C. 5.1.26, kalon to thnêiskein hois (for toutois hois) hubrin>> to>> zên pherei death is sweet to those to whom life brings contumely Men.>> Sent.>> 291, legô pantas [p. 565] eispherein aph’ hosôn (for apo tosoutôn hosa)>> hekastos echei I say that all must contribute according to the ability>> of>> each (from such means as each man has) D. 2.31.> >Carl and Clay:> >Thank you for your responses. Forgive more for asking a few more>(probably bone-headed) questions.> >(1) Would I be safe to assume that, syntactically speaking, the>correlative pronoun functions approximately like the relative pronoun,>agreeing in gender and number with an “antecedent,” whether explicit or>implied? I realize that the correlative pronoun may precede its>“antecedent,” so I am using the term loosely, in the sense that the>correlative is dependent on the main clause.> >(2) Smyth seems to be saying that the elliptical antecedent is a>demonstrative pronoun. This was actually my first thought in dealing>with Rom 6.3, and the conclusion I came to with regard to Rom 3.19 (hOSA>LEGEI … [TAUTA] LALEI). This seems to fit well for Rom 3.19, since the>elliptical TAUTA is the object of the verb. But in Rom 6.3 it seems>awkward to imagine a hOUTOI as the subject of the first person plural>EBAPTISQHMEN. Is this just because I am thinking in English? Would it be>natural Greek for a demonstrative pronoun to be the subject of a first>person plural verb? Or would the personal pronoun hHMEIS be a better>candidate, at least in Rom 6.3?> >Thanks for your patience. The reason this is so important to me is that>I am presently diagramming Romans. Though I realize things are not>always as “tidy” as we would like, still I want to represent the>syntactical relationships as accurately as possible.I really don’t think there’s any real distinction between personal pronounantecedents and the demonstratives referred to in the Smyth article (I’dcite from BDF, except that it’s in my North Carolina reference library thatI won’t have access to for another two weeks), but there are other GNTconstructions like this:Phil 3:15 hOSOI OUN TELEIOI, TOUTO FRONWMEN.Gal 3:27 hOSOI GAR EIS CRISTON EBAPTISQHTE, CRISTON ENEDUSASQE.And there may be another factor here; although hOSOS does indeed functionas a correlative with TOSOS and the interrogative POSOS, I really thinkthat it is already in the course of becoming what it is in Modern Greek,the standard relative pronoun taking the place of hOS, hH, hO. I don’tthink that it consistently acts as a relative pronoun in the GNT, but Ithink there are several passages where one could argue that it is.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Biblical Greek crossword puzzleBiblical Greek crossword puzzle
hOSOI in Rom 6.3 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Jan 21 08:43:25 EST 2002
Biblical Greek crossword puzzle Biblical Greek crossword puzzle Iver Larsen comments below:> > Thank you for your responses. Forgive more for asking a few more> (probably bone-headed) questions.> > (1) Would I be safe to assume that, syntactically speaking, the> correlative pronoun functions approximately like the relative pronoun,> agreeing in gender and number with an “antecedent,” whether explicit or> implied? I realize that the correlative pronoun may precede its> “antecedent,” so I am using the term loosely, in the sense that the> correlative is dependent on the main clause.Yes, it agrees in gender and number with something, but it has no personmarking like a finite verb has. So, whether the subject is 1st, 2nd or 3rdperson plural, it makes no difference, the correlative pronoun will just beplural. Of course, if the subject is an impersonal noun, the pronoun willagree with that noun in gender and number, if it relates to the subject.> > (2) Smyth seems to be saying that the elliptical antecedent is a> demonstrative pronoun. This was actually my first thought in dealing> with Rom 6.3, and the conclusion I came to with regard to Rom 3.19 (hOSA> LEGEI … [TAUTA] LALEI). This seems to fit well for Rom 3.19, since the> elliptical TAUTA is the object of the verb. But in Rom 6.3 it seems> awkward to imagine a hOUTOI as the subject of the first person plural> EBAPTISQHMEN. Is this just because I am thinking in English? Would it be> natural Greek for a demonstrative pronoun to be the subject of a first> person plural verb? Or would the personal pronoun hHMEIS be a better> candidate, at least in Rom 6.3?First, I don’t see the need to talk about an elliptical TAUTA in 3:19.Rather hOSA is used substantively just like the demonstrative pronoun isoften used, and it has an implied “things”. It is these “things” that arethe shared object in the two clauses. To add a TAUTA to the second clausewould add an emphasis that is not needed, nor implied.Second, yes, hOUTOI would not occur in 6:3 since the verbs are in 1st personplural. hHMEIS would be a better candidate, but uncalled for.hOSOS may refer to an explicit noun such as inRom 7:1, 1 Cor 7:39 EF’ hOSON CRONON2 Cor 1:20 hOSAI GAR EPAGGELIAI QEOUOr it may refer to an implied general noun, such as people (hOSOI) or things(hOSA).In a case like Gal 6:12 andRom 8:14 hOSOI GAR PNEUMATI QEOU AGONTAI, hOUTOI hUIOI QEOU EISINthe demonstrative is not required because of the hOSOI. It would be possibleto leave it out and still have the third person plural subject: For as many(people) they-are-led by the Spirit of God, they-are sons of God.The addition of the demonstrate only serves to add contrastive emphasis:These ones (and not others) they-are sons of God.In Rom 6:3 the personal subject “we” is included in the verb that occurs inboth clauses: EBAPTISQHMEN”we-are-baptized”.hOSOI refers to the 1st person plural subject included in the verb form, butit can only take the plural and no person agreement. It is masculine,because the subject is personal, that is people rather than things.”As many (of us who) we-are-baptized into Christ, (so many of us)we-are-baptized into his death”If we were to add the emphatic personal pronoun hHMEIS, we would add acontrastive emphasis that does not fit in this context.Iver Larsen
Biblical Greek crossword puzzleBiblical Greek crossword puzzle