Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 06:30:28 EDT 1999
Greek Vocabulary Builder Mark 3.1 At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTO is consistently taken as a genitiveabsolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems abit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWSATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?Could hWS ATENIZONTES ASAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Berendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where hewas going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?Thanks!JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/
Greek Vocabulary BuilderMark 3.1
Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 06:30:28 EDT 1999
Greek Vocabulary Builder Mark 3.1 At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTO is consistently taken as a genitiveabsolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems abit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWSATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?Could hWS ATENIZONTES ASAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Berendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where hewas going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?Thanks!JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/
Greek Vocabulary BuilderMark 3.1
Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 12:33:40 EDT 1999
journal article Mark 3.1 Carl,Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a”genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammarsmight>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists assuch;Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms ofwhat is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15of their Greek New Testament Insert, as followsEpexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELYor CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same caserefer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow asubstantive of any case and further identify that substantive.hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)He who gave us the down payment which is the spiritI’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look toolong and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking inEnglish, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzyheadedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, andPOREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TONOURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that mightrequire some more violent action than that which is possible by email?:-)JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/
journal articleMark 3.1
Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Tue May 11 12:33:40 EDT 1999
journal article Mark 3.1 Carl,Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a”genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammarsmight>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists assuch;Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms ofwhat is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15of their Greek New Testament Insert, as followsEpexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELYor CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same caserefer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow asubstantive of any case and further identify that substantive.hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)He who gave us the down payment which is the spiritI’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look toolong and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking inEnglish, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzyheadedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, andPOREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TONOURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that mightrequire some more violent action than that which is possible by email?:-)JM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/
journal articleMark 3.1
Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 13:16:15 EDT 1999
Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 At 11:30 AM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTOU is consistently taken as a genitive>absolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems a>bit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWS>ATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?>Could hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Be>rendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where he>was going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars mightlist it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as such;the only construction that might be so-termed of which I am aware is wherean expression such as this is attached to a possessive pronoun oradjective, as, for example:hHYATO MOU THS CEIROS POREUOMENOU “he touched my hand as I walked”(where MOU is a possessive pronoun properly construed with CEIROS)OR–you might see the same expression written with a possessiveadjective thus, still with a genitive of the participle:hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand asI walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU isgenitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominaladjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sureI’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t foundthere).(2) On the other hand, the genitive absolute IS appropriate here because itrefers to a person different from the subject of ATENIZONTES HSAN; that isto say, the primary subject of the hWS clause is the plural “they” referingto the disciples–so the force of the genitive absolute is to function asan adverbial clause SUBORDINATE to ATENIZONTES HSAN: “While they werestaring into the sky as he was going …”(3) Apposition to EIS TON OURANON would really need to be introduced bysome adverbial conjunction, I think, such as hOU or hOPOU or hOPOI or hINA(except that hOPOI and hINA are more likely to be seen in classical Atticthan in Koine).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/
Mark 3.1Mark 3.1
Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 13:16:15 EDT 1999
Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 At 11:30 AM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>At Acts. 1:10 POREUOMENOU AUTOU is consistently taken as a genitive>absolute with temporal connotation “as He went up” (NKJV). It seems a>bit awkward since the verse already has a temporal expression hWS>ATENIZONTES. My question: could this not be a genitive of apposition?>Could hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON POREUOMENOU AOUTOU. Be>rendered something like “As they stood gazing into the heaven where he>was going?” or would that require the article – TOU POREUOMENOU AUTOU?(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars mightlist it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as such;the only construction that might be so-termed of which I am aware is wherean expression such as this is attached to a possessive pronoun oradjective, as, for example:hHYATO MOU THS CEIROS POREUOMENOU “he touched my hand as I walked”(where MOU is a possessive pronoun properly construed with CEIROS)OR–you might see the same expression written with a possessiveadjective thus, still with a genitive of the participle:hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand asI walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU isgenitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominaladjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sureI’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t foundthere).(2) On the other hand, the genitive absolute IS appropriate here because itrefers to a person different from the subject of ATENIZONTES HSAN; that isto say, the primary subject of the hWS clause is the plural “they” referingto the disciples–so the force of the genitive absolute is to function asan adverbial clause SUBORDINATE to ATENIZONTES HSAN: “While they werestaring into the sky as he was going …”(3) Apposition to EIS TON OURANON would really need to be introduced bysome adverbial conjunction, I think, such as hOU or hOPOU or hOPOI or hINA(except that hOPOI and hINA are more likely to be seen in classical Atticthan in Koine).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/
Mark 3.1Mark 3.1
Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 21:03:29 EDT 1999
Request for study recommendations. Acts 1:10 At 5:33 PM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>Carl,>Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a>“genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:> >>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars>might>>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as>such;> >Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms of>what is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15>of their Greek New Testament Insert, as follows> >Epexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELY>or CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same case>refer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow a>substantive of any case and further identify that substantive.> >hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)>He who gave us the down payment which is the spirit> > >I’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look too>long and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking in>English, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzy>headedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, and>POREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TON>OURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that might>require some more violent action than that which is possible by email?>:-)Well, personally I have allergies to more things than I know, but I do feelmy head has become clearer (of allergies, at any rate) with my seasonalshift to the Blue Ridge mountains. Why don’t you come over here to theeastern mountains and see if that won’t clear up your head ;-)More seriously, I now recognize what you meant by “appositional” or”epexegetical” genitive; again, I am not sure this merits a distinct term;it really is a variety of what has been called a genitive of definition asin the English “A Book of Apophthegms”–where “book” hardly means anythingat all without “of apophthegms” and the title might just as well be”Apophthegms.” So in the above Greek example TOU PNEUMATOS ‘defines’ or’delimits’ how ARRABWNA is to be understood, since it is metaphoricallyused.In Acts 1:10 however, I hardly see how POREUOMENOU AUTOU can be defining orappositional to EIS TON OURANON. Again I really don’t see any accountingfor it EXCEPT as a genitive absolute. Perhaps it would help to look at thisgenitive absolute NOT as temporal (since that seems to be part of yourproblem) but causal (genitive absolutes are always adverbial, I think it’ssafe to say); the point of the statement is not so much “while they weregazing at the sky while he was on the way” as “While they were gazing atthe sky, the reason being that he was departing …” Certainly Luke couldhave written hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON KAI hWS EPOREUETO (oreven POREUOMENOS HN). But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOUAUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why thedisciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see itas a parallel temporal clause). But I still can’t see how it can fall intoan appositional/epexegetical type of genitive.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/
Request for study recommendations.Acts 1:10
Acts 1:10 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 11 21:03:29 EDT 1999
Request for study recommendations. Acts 1:10 At 5:33 PM +0100 5/11/99, John M. Moe wrote:>Carl,>Thanks for your response to my question regarding the possibility of a>“genitive of Apposition”. You wrote:> >>(1) I really don’t see how that’s possible. Although some grammars>might>>list it, I don’t really think a “genitive of apposition” exists as>such;> >Perhaps my choice of terminology was poor. I was thinking in terms of>what is described by Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren on p. 15>of their Greek New Testament Insert, as follows> >Epexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELY>or CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same case>refer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow a>substantive of any case and further identify that substantive.> >hO DOUS HMIN TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS (2Cor. 5:5)>He who gave us the down payment which is the spirit> > >I’m a bit confused at this point (happens all too often when I look too>long and too close at something) and I don’t know if it’s my thinking in>English, some hangover of the Hebrew construct, or just fuzzy>headedness, but the double reference to time strikes me as clumsy, and>POREUOMENOU AUTOU seems like it could possibly “further identify” TON>OURANON. Can you help me clear my head? or do you think that might>require some more violent action than that which is possible by email?>:-)Well, personally I have allergies to more things than I know, but I do feelmy head has become clearer (of allergies, at any rate) with my seasonalshift to the Blue Ridge mountains. Why don’t you come over here to theeastern mountains and see if that won’t clear up your head ;-)More seriously, I now recognize what you meant by “appositional” or”epexegetical” genitive; again, I am not sure this merits a distinct term;it really is a variety of what has been called a genitive of definition asin the English “A Book of Apophthegms”–where “book” hardly means anythingat all without “of apophthegms” and the title might just as well be”Apophthegms.” So in the above Greek example TOU PNEUMATOS ‘defines’ or’delimits’ how ARRABWNA is to be understood, since it is metaphoricallyused.In Acts 1:10 however, I hardly see how POREUOMENOU AUTOU can be defining orappositional to EIS TON OURANON. Again I really don’t see any accountingfor it EXCEPT as a genitive absolute. Perhaps it would help to look at thisgenitive absolute NOT as temporal (since that seems to be part of yourproblem) but causal (genitive absolutes are always adverbial, I think it’ssafe to say); the point of the statement is not so much “while they weregazing at the sky while he was on the way” as “While they were gazing atthe sky, the reason being that he was departing …” Certainly Luke couldhave written hWS ATENIZONTES HSAN EIS TON OURANON KAI hWS EPOREUETO (oreven POREUOMENOS HN). But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOUAUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why thedisciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see itas a parallel temporal clause). But I still can’t see how it can fall intoan appositional/epexegetical type of genitive.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/
Request for study recommendations.Acts 1:10
Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Wed May 12 05:45:12 EDT 1999
Acts 1:10 Greek fonts Carl,You wrote:<I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU AUTOU is really temporalso much <as it is explanatory of the reason why the disciples weregazing skywardsThat is the exact point I was getting in my reading but didn’t know howor if it could be justified grammatically. I did some more reading inWallace and realized that I was on the wrong track with the”appositional” or “epexegetical” genitive. Then came your post to clearthings up nicely. Thanks again.Your Blue Ridge Mountains must be wonderful. I shall think wistfully ofthem as I spend a week sailing and fishing midst the Minnesota mosquitosat the end of May. Will you see Bearded Bill of Ashervill this Summer?I keep thinking that one of these days we will see one of his stream ofconsciousness postings on again. They were always well worthwading through.Blessings on you Summer in the clear airJM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/
Acts 1:10Greek fonts
Acts 1:10 John M. Moe John.M.Moe-1 at tc.umn.edu
Wed May 12 05:45:12 EDT 1999
Acts 1:10 Greek fonts Carl,You wrote:<I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU AUTOU is really temporalso much <as it is explanatory of the reason why the disciples weregazing skywardsThat is the exact point I was getting in my reading but didn’t know howor if it could be justified grammatically. I did some more reading inWallace and realized that I was on the wrong track with the”appositional” or “epexegetical” genitive. Then came your post to clearthings up nicely. Thanks again.Your Blue Ridge Mountains must be wonderful. I shall think wistfully ofthem as I spend a week sailing and fishing midst the Minnesota mosquitosat the end of May. Will you see Bearded Bill of Ashervill this Summer?I keep thinking that one of these days we will see one of his stream ofconsciousness postings on again. They were always well worthwading through.Blessings on you Summer in the clear airJM–Rev. John M. MoeSt. John’s Lutheran Church, Rich Valleyhttp://www.state.net/sjrv/
Acts 1:10Greek fonts
Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 10:40:58 EDT 1999
Mt 19:9 Word Order: Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad wrote:>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>as a parallel temporal clause).Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at hisresurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he wasascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in caseJesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but inPOREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.>hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand as>I walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU is>genitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominal>adjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sure>I’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t found>there).The following (trivial) objection does not affect the main argumentof C. Conrad’s posting, here omitted).I’d really like to see such a sentence in classical Attic, for myown research. I could be completely wrong, but I thing that thisconstruction at least with such word order –with a verb like A(/PT,governing the genitive– is very improbable in classical Attic prose (notin other dialects like Herodot’s Ionic, or poetry or earlier Greek). Myobjection is based on the fact that it is construed like a double objectsentence, and the double construction of the whole –POREUOME/NOU– and thepart — TH=S E)MH=S CEIRO/S– is unknown of the classical Attic prose withverbs in the active voice (the passive equivalent of the activeconstruction does appear and is well attested with verbs governing theaccusative). But if anybody know of an example, please do tell me!N.B.: You don’t need to be shocked for the expression “doubleobject construction” applied to verbs governing cases different from theaccusative. You can find several examples in the lexica. I collectedseveral examples for my thesis I am afrait I don’t have here at hand.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España
Mt 19:9Word Order: Mark 3.1
Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 10:40:58 EDT 1999
Mt 19:9 Word Order: Mark 3.1 Carl W. Conrad wrote:>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>as a parallel temporal clause).Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at hisresurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he wasascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in caseJesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but inPOREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.>hHYATO THS EMHS CEIROS POREUOMENOU (likewise “he touched my hand as>I walked”). In this instance I think one would say that POREUOMENOU is>genitive because it agrees with an EMOU implicit in the pronominal>adjective EMHS. I know I’ve seen this in classical Attic, but I’m not sure>I’ve ever seen it in Koine (which, of course, doesn’t mean it isn’t found>there).The following (trivial) objection does not affect the main argumentof C. Conrad’s posting, here omitted).I’d really like to see such a sentence in classical Attic, for myown research. I could be completely wrong, but I thing that thisconstruction at least with such word order –with a verb like A(/PT,governing the genitive– is very improbable in classical Attic prose (notin other dialects like Herodot’s Ionic, or poetry or earlier Greek). Myobjection is based on the fact that it is construed like a double objectsentence, and the double construction of the whole –POREUOME/NOU– and thepart — TH=S E)MH=S CEIRO/S– is unknown of the classical Attic prose withverbs in the active voice (the passive equivalent of the activeconstruction does appear and is well attested with verbs governing theaccusative). But if anybody know of an example, please do tell me!N.B.: You don’t need to be shocked for the expression “doubleobject construction” applied to verbs governing cases different from theaccusative. You can find several examples in the lexica. I collectedseveral examples for my thesis I am afrait I don’t have here at hand.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España
Mt 19:9Word Order: Mark 3.1
Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 13:52:18 EDT 1999
Funny Greek Word Funny Greek Word I wrote:>Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>>as a parallel temporal clause).> >Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at his>resurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he was>ascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in case>Jesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?>Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but in>POREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.As I was walking down the street, after writing the quotedparagraph, that teasing voice inside my head started parodying my words:”Do you mean, dear Daniel, that at Luke’s eyes the disciples gazing to thesky and the Lord’s leaving to the skies where just to synchronic events,without causal relation whatsoever?” Well, not: I meant that the syntaxsimply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kepttheir eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clearenough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but–that was my point– it is not the construction what determines theinterpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always aconstruction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possibleinterpretations, but the fact that a causal, explicative, etc subordinatecan concur in the same sentence with an absolute construction susceptibleof a causal, explicative, etc value, makes me consider absolute (andpredicative) participles into a separate category.P.D. This time I am CC to myself.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España
Funny Greek WordFunny Greek Word
Acts 1:10 Daniel Riaño danielrr at mad.servicom.es
Thu May 13 13:52:18 EDT 1999
Funny Greek Word Funny Greek Word I wrote:>Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >>But I don’t think that the content of POREUOMENOU>>AUTOU is really temporal so much as it is explanatory of the reason why the>>disciples were gazing skywards (this despite my earlier endeavor to see it>>as a parallel temporal clause).> >Do you mean that the reason why the disciples stood gazing at his>resurrected Master as he was leaving from them was the fact that he was>ascending to heaven, but they could have been looking anywhere else in case>Jesus had decided leaving the room by, say, just crossing the door?>Hmmmmmm, well, maybe that’s just different interpretations, but in>POREUOMENOU AUTOU I just can perceive a temporal semantic value.As I was walking down the street, after writing the quotedparagraph, that teasing voice inside my head started parodying my words:”Do you mean, dear Daniel, that at Luke’s eyes the disciples gazing to thesky and the Lord’s leaving to the skies where just to synchronic events,without causal relation whatsoever?” Well, not: I meant that the syntaxsimply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kepttheir eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clearenough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but–that was my point– it is not the construction what determines theinterpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always aconstruction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possibleinterpretations, but the fact that a causal, explicative, etc subordinatecan concur in the same sentence with an absolute construction susceptibleof a causal, explicative, etc value, makes me consider absolute (andpredicative) participles into a separate category.P.D. This time I am CC to myself.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Daniel Riaño RufilanchasMadrid, España
Funny Greek WordFunny Greek Word
Acts 1:10 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 13 15:07:19 EDT 1999
Great site for Bible scholars Word Order: Mark 3.1 Daniel wrote:> I meant that the syntax> simply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kept> their eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clear> enough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but> –that was my point– it is not the construction what determines the> interpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always a> construction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possible> interpretationsDaniel,Your comments quoted here remind me that in the discussion of therelationship between syntax and semantics there is somewhat of a chickenand egg problem (i.e, which came first). Most of the grammaticalfundamentalists hold to the traditional notion that the semantics of apassage is deciphered from the bottom up. That the analysis of themorphological and syntactical data leads to an understanding of thesemantics.I think this approach is at best simplistic. I am convinced thatunderstanding the semantic structure of a passage sheds more light onthe syntax of the passage than understanding the syntax sheds light onthe semantic structure.Take for example two verbs in Luke 8:23 KATEBH and SUNEPLHROUNTO. Theaspect difference between perfective and inperfective is probablysignificant here. But the precise meaning of SUNEPLHROUNTO isconstrained by the semantic structure of the passage to such an extentthat this verb could have no aspect marking at all and the aspect couldbe inferred from the context with no difficulty. SUNEPLHROUNTO can onlymean that water was coming over the sides of the boat. It cannot meanthat the boat was full of water. The later meaning is renderedimpossible by the detail that Jesus is still sleeping in the boat. Sothe semantic structure of the passage constrains the sense of the verbSUNEPLHROUNTO. It must describe a process and not an already completedpast event.This example is just intended as an illustration of how semanticconstraints function to limit the meaning of clause level constituents.The problem with many discussions of syntax is that they are arguedusing the assumptions of grammatical fundamentalism. They are argued asif all meaning in a text is discovered in a bottom up manner based onmorphology and syntax.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Great site for Bible scholarsWord Order: Mark 3.1
Acts 1:10 clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 13 15:07:19 EDT 1999
Great site for Bible scholars Word Order: Mark 3.1 Daniel wrote:> I meant that the syntax> simply says that all the time the Lord was ascending, the disciples kept> their eyes on him. The situation as described by the speaker is clear> enough to make the hearer deduce a relation between the two actions, but> –that was my point– it is not the construction what determines the> interpretation. IMO, the absolute construction with participle, always a> construction with a temporal value, delimits a range of possible> interpretationsDaniel,Your comments quoted here remind me that in the discussion of therelationship between syntax and semantics there is somewhat of a chickenand egg problem (i.e, which came first). Most of the grammaticalfundamentalists hold to the traditional notion that the semantics of apassage is deciphered from the bottom up. That the analysis of themorphological and syntactical data leads to an understanding of thesemantics.I think this approach is at best simplistic. I am convinced thatunderstanding the semantic structure of a passage sheds more light onthe syntax of the passage than understanding the syntax sheds light onthe semantic structure.Take for example two verbs in Luke 8:23 KATEBH and SUNEPLHROUNTO. Theaspect difference between perfective and inperfective is probablysignificant here. But the precise meaning of SUNEPLHROUNTO isconstrained by the semantic structure of the passage to such an extentthat this verb could have no aspect marking at all and the aspect couldbe inferred from the context with no difficulty. SUNEPLHROUNTO can onlymean that water was coming over the sides of the boat. It cannot meanthat the boat was full of water. The later meaning is renderedimpossible by the detail that Jesus is still sleeping in the boat. Sothe semantic structure of the passage constrains the sense of the verbSUNEPLHROUNTO. It must describe a process and not an already completedpast event.This example is just intended as an illustration of how semanticconstraints function to limit the meaning of clause level constituents.The problem with many discussions of syntax is that they are arguedusing the assumptions of grammatical fundamentalism. They are argued asif all meaning in a text is discovered in a bottom up manner based onmorphology and syntax.–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Great site for Bible scholarsWord Order: Mark 3.1
One statement I should have made on my comment. We lead them in but not whip them in. I was talking about the one who wouldn’t listen. If they won’t listen. We pray for them. But we don’t compromise the gospel either. But we do lead.
One statement I should have made on my comment. We lead them in but not whip them in. I was talking about the one who wouldn’t listen. If they won’t listen. We pray for them. But we don’t compromise the gospel either. But we do lead.