[] Acts 17,16 Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 1 22:54:59 εστ 2004
[] Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … φολλοω υπ) [] Acts 17,16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου,παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσκατειδωλον ουσαν θν POLINWallace lists ουσαν as “indirect discourse” perParsons/Culy (ι don’t have the source they havesited). Can someone show me how this participle couldbe considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involvedin the “direct” discourse and what was imagined tohave been said?)=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
[] Deponents (was 2nd aorsit … φολλοω υπ)[] Acts 17,16
[] Acts 17,16 Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Thu Apr 1 23:27:22 εστ 2004
[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 On Apr 1, 2004, at 9:54 πμ, Eddie Mishoe wrote:> > εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου,> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ> κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν> > Wallace lists ουσαν as “indirect discourse” per> Parsons/Culy (ι don’t have the source they have> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to> have been said?)Certain verbs sometimes have as their object a participial clause expressing indirect discourse. Remember, indirect discourse–maybe not a good name for the phenomenon–may indicate mental activity as well as speech. In this case θεωρουντοσ (a verbal of perception) has as its object the participial clause κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν. Though in the accusative case, θν πολιν functions as the semantic subject of ουσαν and κατειδωλον as the predicate adjective. Paul’s original thought, from which the indirect discourse derives, is something like, “hH πολισ εστιν κατειδωλοσ” (“The city is full of idols!”).============Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16
[] Acts 17,16 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Apr 3 07:15:49 εστ 2004
[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 > > εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου,> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ> κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν> > Wallace lists ουσαν as “indirect discourse” per> Parsons/Culy (ι don’t have the source they have> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to> have been said?)> > =====> Eddie Mishoe> Pastorι have not read Wallace and ι approach the grammar of Greek form a generaldescriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, somy comments my be at variance with tradition.Having said that, ι agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” isnot a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausalobject of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example ofindirect discourse?What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirectdiscourse?In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the citybeing idolatrous (full of idols)”ρεβ: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”ρσβ: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause asthe object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it ismore common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be furtherqualified by a participial phrase/clause.Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but θεωρεω is not one ofthem.Iver Larsen
[] Acts 17,16 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 09:19:47 εστ 2004
[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16 At 3:15 πμ +0300 4/3/04, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου,>> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ>> κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν>> >> Wallace lists ουσαν as “indirect discourse” per>> Parsons/Culy (ι don’t have the source they have>> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could>> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved>> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to>> have been said?)>> >> =====>> Eddie Mishoe>> Pastor> >ι have not read Wallace and ι approach the grammar of Greek form a general>descriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, so>my comments my be at variance with tradition.> >Having said that, ι agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” is>not a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausal>object of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.> >Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example of>indirect discourse?>What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirect>discourse?> >In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the city>being idolatrous (full of idols)”> >ρεβ: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”>ρσβ: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”> >It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause as>the object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it is>more common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be further>qualified by a participial phrase/clause.> >Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but θεωρεω is not one of>them.> >Iver Larsen> >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
Sat Apr 3 10:00:31 εστ 2004
[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 17,16: Apology At 3:15 πμ +0300 4/3/04, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου,>> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ>> κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν>> >> Wallace lists ουσαν as “indirect discourse” per>> Parsons/Culy (ι don’t have the source they have>> sited). Can someone show me how this participle could>> be considered “indirect discourse”? (Who was involved>> in the “direct” discourse and what was imagined to>> have been said?)>> >> =====>> Eddie Mishoe>> Pastor> >ι have not read Wallace and ι approach the grammar of Greek form a general>descriptive linguistics background rather than traditional Greek grammar, so>my comments my be at variance with tradition.For the sake of those who may be less than fully aware of what “traditionalGreek grammar” actually says on this matter, let me cite Smyth §2110ff:———§2110. Verbs of Perception.–Verbs signifying to see, perceive, hear, learn(i.e. learn by inquiry, hear of), when they denote physical (actual)perception take the participle. When they denote intellectual perceptionthey may take the participle or hoti or hôs with a finite verb. (TheHomeric usage is less strict.)§2111. Such verbs are, in Attic, horô see, aisthanomai perceive, akouôhear, punthanomai learn.§2112. The participle may stand either not in indirect discourse or inindirect discourse.a. Not in Indirect Discourse.–Here verbs of perceiving denote physicalperception–the act perceived or heard of. With akouô and punthanomai theparticiple stands in the genitive; with aisthanomai it usually stands inthe accusative (as with horô), but sometimes in the genitive. (See 1361,1367.)eide Klearchon dielaunonta he saw Clearchus riding through χ. α. 1.5.12 ;aisthomenos Lamproklea_ pros tên mêtera chalepainonta perceiving Lamproclesangry with his mother χ. μ. 2.2.1 , êisthêsai pôpote mou êpseudomarturountos ê su_kophantountos; have you ever noticed me eitherbearing false witness or playing the part of an informer? 4. 4. 11; êkousanautou phônêsantos they heard him speaking χ. σ. 3 . 13; hôs eputhonto têsPulou kateilêmmenês when they learned of the capture of Pylos τ. 4.6 .ν. Verbs of physical perception, horô (especially) and akouô, regularlytake the present participle in Attic prose, which usually refuses todistinguish between ι see a house burning and ι see a house burn. Thecomplexive aorist, summing up the action, does however occur, as hôs eidenelaphon ekpêdêsasan . . . ediôken when he saw a hind break cover he gavechase χ. ξ. 1.4.8 . Cp. pesonta eidon Hdt. 9.22.b. In Indirect Discourse.–Here verbs of perceiving denote intellectual [p.472] perception–the fact that something is perceived or heard of. Withakouô and punthanomai the participle stands in the accusative (as withhorô, aisthanomai). Cp. 1363, 1365, 2144, 2145.horômen panta alêthê onta ha legete we see that everything you say is trueX. α. 5.5.24 , aisthanomai tauta houtôs echonta ι perceive that this is soX. μ. 3.5.5 , êkouse Kuron en Kilikiai onta he heard that Cyrus was inCilicia χ. α. 1.4.5 , hotan kluêi tinos hêxont’ Orestên when she hears fromany one that Orestes will return σ. El. 293 , puthomenoi Artaxerxêntethnêkota having learned that Artaxerxes was dead τ. 4.50 .§2113. Verbs of Finding.–Verbs of finding and detecting (heuriskô,(kata)lambanô; pass. haliskomai) in their capacity as verbs of perceivingtake the participle (a) not in indirect discourse, of the act or state inwhich a person or thing is found; or (b) in indirect discourse, of the factthat a person or thing is found in an act or state.a. kêrux aphikomenos hêure tous andras diephtharmenous the herald, on hisarrival, found the men already put to death τ. 2.6, heurêtai pistôspra_ttôn he has been found to have dealt faithfully δ. 19.332 , a_n ar’allon tina lambanêi pseudomenon if then he catch anybody else lying π. ρ.389d , ên epibouleuôn haliskêtai if he be detected in plotting χ. Ag. 8. 3.b. dia tên Iliou halôsin heuriskousi sphisi eousan tên archên tês echthrêsthey conclude that the beginning of their enmity was on account of thecapture of Ilium Hdt. 1.5 .§2114. It is often difficult to distinguish the two constructions of 2113.Thus, katalambanousi neôsti stasei tous tôn Athênaiôn enantiousekpeptôkotas (τ. 7.33) may mean they found that the anti-Athenian party hadbeen recently expelled by a revolution (ind. disc.) or them recentlyexpelled (not in ind. disc.). So katalambanousi . . . talla aphestêkotathey found the other cities in a state of revolt τ. 1.59 (that they hadrevolted would be possible). In the meaning discover, find katalambanô doesnot take the aorist participle.§2115. poiô meaning represent has the construction of the verbs of 2113.Thus, plêsiazontas tous theous tois anthrôpois hoion t’ autois poiêsai itis possible for them (poets) to represent the gods as drawing nigh to menI. 9.9. Cp. 2142.==========>Having said that, ι agree with you and Steven that “indirect discourse” is>not a helpful term to use here. Normally, indirect discourse is a clausal>object of a verb of saying or thinking, not “seeing” as here.Perhaps we should invent a better descriptive term, but those who havelearned that indirect discourse in Greek may take the form of acc.+ inf.with verbs of telling and understanding, of acc. + ptc. with verbs ofperception, or of hOTI + nom. subject and finite verb in the appropriatetense, the usage is not confusing.>Would you say that “he saw a man coming down the street” is an example of>indirect discourse?No, but that construction in Greek is indeed traditionally understood as aform of “indirect discourse” because it is a common collocation. But theEnglish equivalent is really “he saw a man come down the street.”>What about “he saw that a man was coming down the street”? Is that indirect>discourse?Yes, in the traditional understanding.>In Acts 17,16 Paul is “very upset in his spirit (from) observing the city>being idolatrous (full of idols)”> >ρεβ: “he was outraged to see the city so full of idols.”>ρσβ: “as he saw that the city was full of idols.”There are several different translation strategies; two of the most commonare: (a) transform the acc.-inf/ptc. construction into a dependent nounclause: “ι saw that John was running”(b) transform the acc.-inf/ptc. construction into an object + infinitivesequence as complement to the verb: “ι saw John run.”>It is possible in Greek (as in English) to use a full subordinate clause as>the object for these verbs, introduced with hOTI or hINA (that), but it is>more common in Greek just have a noun as object which may then be further>qualified by a participial phrase/clause.Yes, and this is equally true of the verbs of perception:Mk 16:4 και αναβλευασαι θεωρουσιν hOTI αποκεκυλισται hO LIQOSJn 4:19 λεγει AUTWi hH γυνη: κυριε, θεωρω hOTI προφηθσ ει συ>Some verbs take an infinitive with accusative, but θεωρεω is not one of>them.No; rather θεωρεω is one of those verbs of perception that may take aparticiple with an accusative:Mk 5:15 … θεωρουσιν τον δαιμονιζομενον καθημενον hIMATISMENON καισωφρονουντα, τον εσχκοτα τον λεγιωναλκ 10:18 … εθεωρουν τον σαταναν hWS αστραφν εκ του ουρανου πεσοντα.Lk 24:39 … ιδετε, hOTI πνευμα σαρκα και οστεα ουκ εξει καθωσ εμε θεωρειτεεξοντα.Jn 6:19 … θεωρουσιν τον ιησουν περπατουντα επι θσ θαλασσησ και εγγυσ τουπλοιου γινομενον …Jn 6:62 εαν ουν θεωῥτε τον hUIONTOU ανθρωπου αναβαινοντα hOPOU ην τοπροτερον …Jn 10:12 hO μισθωτοσ … θεωρει τον λυκον ερξομονον και αφιησιν τα προβατα …– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 17,16: Apology
[] Acts 17,16: Apology Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Apr 3 10:02:47 εστ 2004
[] Acts 17,16 [] Acts 16,31 ι apologize for sending a bare-bones copy of Iver’s post to which ι havesent my own addendum; ι thought ι had lost the copy on which ι intended tocomment as ι have now done.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Acts 17,16[] Acts 16,31
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 14 14:02:46 εδτ 2006
[] Removal from mailing list [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι αξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν.Parsons/Culy identify θεωρουντοσ as a genitive absolute. Barrett (Acts ιξξ) suggests that the genitive θεωρουντοσ looks back to αυτου whereas θεωρουντι (Byzantine) to AUTWi.Interesting syntax.The main clausePARWXUNETO το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi with three qualifying constituentsEN δε ταισ αθηναισεκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλουθεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν POLINCurious that the identity of the main participant του παυλου would be buried in one of the qualifying constituents.Elizabeth Kline
[] Removal from mailing list[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι George φ Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 14 15:09:03 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι If this were all that we had, ι would agree with you regarding the positioning of the main participant. Since, however, Paul is mentioned immediately preceding this as having been left in Athens, ι see no particular problem. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:02:46 PMSubject: [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντιαξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν.Parsons/Culy identify θεωρουντοσ as a genitive absolute. Barrett (Acts ιξξ) suggests that the genitive θεωρουντοσ looks back to αυτου whereas θεωρουντι (Byzantine) to AUTWi.Interesting syntax.The main clausePARWXUNETO το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi with three qualifying constituentsEN δε ταισ αθηναισεκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλουθεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν POLINCurious that the identity of the main participant του παυλου would be buried in one of the qualifying constituents.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Oct 14 17:58:15 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι Dear Elizabeth,Would not εκδεξομενου require a genitive to follow since the preposition EKrequires a genitive? With compounds this may not be necessary, but Iremember something about compound words with εκ requiring a subject in thegenitive with accusative direct object such as we have here. This could alsoapply to other compounds with prepositions requiring a dative, etc. MaybeCarl could comment on this?En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:02 AMSubject: [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι> αξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν> πολιν.> > Parsons/Culy identify θεωρουντοσ as a genitive absolute. Barrett> (Acts ιξξ) suggests that the genitive θεωρουντοσ looks back to αυτου> whereas θεωρουντι (Byzantine) to AUTWi.> > Interesting syntax.> > The main clause> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi> > with three qualifying constituents> > εν δε ταισ αθηναισ> > εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου> > θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν> > Curious that the identity of the main participant του παυλου would be> buried in one of the qualifying constituents.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by αβγ Anti-Virus.> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 – Release Date: 10/11/06> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
Sat Oct 14 18:21:17 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] How can we more efficiently search the archives? Combinations of εκ with a verb do not require a genitive. ι had thought about this possibility since some verbs do have such requirements. Let us take one transitive verb (It is necessary that it be transitive to have an object) and one book to examine this. And the choice is <drumroll> εκβαλλω in Matthew.This appears in 25 verses of Mt.7.4, 5, 228.12, 16, 319.25, 33, 34, 3810.1, 812.20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 3513.5215.1717.1921.12, 3922.1325.30In these verses we have objects such as το κοφοσ, θν δοκον, τα πνευματα, hHMAS, τα δαιμονια, θν κρισιν, etc. So far ι have noted three passive constructions which would therefore not have an object which includes one case of a gen abs. It would appears thus that having εκ as a preposition does νοτ require a genitive object. georgegfsomsel_________—– Original Message —-From: Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>; Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:58:15 PMSubject: Re: [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/QEWROUNTIDear Elizabeth,Would not εκδεξομενου require a genitive to follow since the preposition EKrequires a genitive? With compounds this may not be necessary, but Iremember something about compound words with εκ requiring a subject in thegenitive with accusative direct object such as we have here. This could alsoapply to other compounds with prepositions requiring a dative, etc. MaybeCarl could comment on this?En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:02 AMSubject: [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι> αξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν> πολιν.> > Parsons/Culy identify θεωρουντοσ as a genitive absolute. Barrett> (Acts ιξξ) suggests that the genitive θεωρουντοσ looks back to αυτου> whereas θεωρουντι (Byzantine) to AUTWi.> > Interesting syntax.> > The main clause> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi> > with three qualifying constituents> > εν δε ταισ αθηναισ> > εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου> > θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν> > Curious that the identity of the main participant του παυλου would be> buried in one of the qualifying constituents.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesyof Com-Pair Services!> > > > — > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by αβγ Anti-Virus.> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 – Release Date: 10/11/06> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of Com-Pair Services!— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι[] How can we more efficiently search the archives?
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 15 04:44:55 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι > αξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν> πολιν.> > Parsons/Culy identify θεωρουντοσ as a genitive absolute. Barrett> (Acts ιξξ) suggests that the genitive θεωρουντοσ looks back to αυτου> whereas θεωρουντι (Byzantine) to AUTWi.βδφ (§417) has a nice and clear description. They say:”The circumstantial participle as a clause in the sentence is still very much in use…, either referring to a noun(pronoun) in the same sentence and in agreement with it (conjunctive participle), or used absolutely; in the latter thesubject and participle are in the genitive.”ι think it is helpful to think of clauses rather than just phrasal constituents. α sentence is made up of clauses, andclauses are made up of phrases. So, in this complex sentence, we see a main clause with two subordinate clauses. Itshows the power of subordination in Greek. The main focus point is not Paul as such, but the provoking of his spirit,because that is the subject of the main clause. The time and location of this event is indicated by the first clausewhich is a genitive absolute:εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του PAULOUThe initial locative phrase is part of the circumstantial clause. Normally (or is it always?), such situationalbackground genitive absolutes occur before the main clause.The reason or occasion for Paul’s feelings is then given in a following conjunctive participle clauseQEWROUNTOS κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολινι believe it is quite common for reason clauses to come after the main clause, but ι suppose if the reason clause was tobe emphasized, it could also come before, if there is not already been a genitive absolute clause in that position. Ihaven’t investigated this, but the genitive absolute in, e.g., Matt 25,5 could be said to indicate reason.ι would agree with Barret that this is best seen as a conjunctive participle clause rather than a genitive absolute,because it follows the main clause, because it can readily be attached to αυτου (Paul), and because it parallels thealternative reading with a dative conjunctive participle.Iver Larsen
Sun Oct 15 13:46:20 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι Iver,Thank you for the lucid analysis.αξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλουπαρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θνπολιν.ρε: θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν> > ι would agree with Barret that this is best seen as a conjunctive > participle clause rather than a genitive absolute,> because it follows the main clause, because it can readily be > attached to αυτου (Paul), and because it parallels the> alternative reading with a dative conjunctive participle.Pasons and Culy state:”The use of genitive absolute is necessitated by the syntactic shift in subject from ‘his spirit’ to ‘him.'”ι am also inclined to go with Barrett on this one.Elizabeth Kline
Sun Oct 15 19:50:29 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι αξτσ 17:15 hOI δε καθιστανοντεσ τον παυλον ηγαγον hEWS αθηνων, και λαβοντεσ εντολην προσ τον σιλαν και τον τιμοθεον hINA hWS ταξιστα ελθωσιν προσ αυτον EXHiESAN. 16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν.On Oct 15, 2006, at 1:44 αμ, Iver Larsen wrote:> εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου> The initial locative phrase is part of the circumstantial clause.It looks to me like εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου establishes a point of departure, linking the following narrative unit with the previous v.15 hOI δε καθιστανοντεσ τον παυλον ηγαγον hEWS αθηνων …… Paul was brought to Athens …While he was in Athens waiting for them (Silas & Tim.) …Elizabeth Kline
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 16 06:56:53 εδτ 2006
[] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:58 πμ, Bryant ψ. Williams ιιι wrote:> Dear Elizabeth,> > Would not εκδεξομενου require a genitive to follow since the > preposition εκ> requires a genitive? With compounds this may not be necessary, but ι> remember something about compound words with εκ requiring a subject > in the> genitive with accusative direct object such as we have here. This > could also> apply to other compounds with prepositions requiring a dative, etc. > Maybe> Carl could comment on this?ι don’t think it’s a genitive absolute but that it is indeed dependent on the αυτου as a circumstantial participle. Regarding the note in Culy-Parsons, it’s perhaps worth noting that Culy believes that adverbial participles are generally in the nominative case, and that may have something to do with the assertion that θεωρουντοσ must be part of a genitive absolute. See my post of Sept 5, 2005 5:46:23 πμ εδτ in the archives, “[] Re: Adverbial participles – Culy” and my earlier discussion of the article, April 14, 2004 8:26:32 αμ εδτ, “Re: [] ρε: Acts 22:6 Revisited (cont.).” Culy’s article is cited in the Culy-Parsons bibliography: “The Clue is in the Case: Distinguishing Adjectival and Adverbial Participles, _Perspectives in Religious Studies_ 2004.> ms ιιι> —– Original Message —–> From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>> To: “greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:02 αμ> Subject: [] Acts 17:16 θεωρουντοσ/θεωρουντι> > >> αξτσ 17:16 εν δε ταισ αθηναισ εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου>> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν>> πολιν.>> >> Parsons/Culy identify θεωρουντοσ as a genitive absolute. Barrett>> (Acts ιξξ) suggests that the genitive θεωρουντοσ looks back to αυτου>> whereas θεωρουντι (Byzantine) to AUTWi.>> >> Interesting syntax.>> >> The main clause>> παρωχυνετο το πνευμα αυτου εν AUTWi>> >> with three qualifying constituents>> >> εν δε ταισ αθηναισ>> >> εκδεξομενου αυτουσ του παυλου>> >> θεωρουντοσ κατειδωλον ουσαν θν πολιν>> >> Curious that the identity of the main participant του παυλου would be>> buried in one of the qualifying constituents.>> >> >> Elizabeth Kline>> >> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a >> courtesy> of Com-Pair Services!>> >> >> >> — >> No virus found in this incoming message.>> Checked by αβγ Anti-Virus.>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 – Release Date: >> 10/11/06>> >> > > > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a > courtesy of Com-Pair Services!> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no
Sat Jun 20 17:04:48 εδτ 1998
John 1:1 Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Help! Isn’t there another verb like εμβριμαομαι that is also used todescribe a snorting kind of sound that a horse makes as well as to expressindignation or anger? ι seem to recall having run into one that is used inthe gospels, but ι can’t find it now…Is it fair to say that Greek verbs used for the emotions are often based onvery concrete sounds and bodily sensations, much more so than theequivalent verbs in English?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives
John 1:1Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…
Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Maurice α. ο‘Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Sat Jun 20 18:23:19 εδτ 1998
Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions… Español At 17:04 20/06/98 -0400, you wrote:>Help! Isn’t there another verb like εμβριμαομαι that is also used to>describe a snorting kind of sound that a horse makes as well as to express>indignation or anger? ι seem to recall having run into one that is used in>the gospels, but ι can’t find it now…Perhaps you are thinking of θυμοομαι [Herod’s anger in Mt. 2:16]Acts seems to abound in verbs of anger, of one kind or another.: παροξυνομαι (Ac 17:16) is an example.Maurice α. ο‘Sullivan[ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ieConfucius said: “To study and not think is a waste. To think and not studyis dangerous.”Analects 2:15
Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions…Español