Togetherness in Eph 3:6 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Mon Oct 29 17:05:08 EST 2001
Towards a semantic definition of Greek Middle Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Before I started looking over Ephesians today, I was reading a book onRhetorical Analysis* and for that reason I was perhaps looking for patternsof interest when I came to Eph 3:6 where Paul is talking about togethernessand uses 3 words: SUGKLHRONOMA, SUSSWMA, SUMMETOCA which start with SU.I am sure that this pattern has been noted by others many times but it justjumped out at me fresh now.Clay — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*Meynet, Roland, 1939- Analyse rhétorique. English TitleRhetorical analysis : an introduction to biblical rhetoric / Roland Meynet.Sheffield, England : Sheffield Academic Press, c1998.
Towards a semantic definition of Greek MiddleTheological Dictionary of the New Testament
Togetherness in Eph 3:6 B. Ward Powers bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Mon Oct 29 19:46:11 EST 2001
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Togetherness in Eph 3:6 Hi, Clay.At 02:05 PM 011029 -0800, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>Before I started looking over Ephesians today, I was reading a book on>Rhetorical Analysis* and for that reason I was perhaps looking for patterns>of interest when I came to Eph 3:6 where Paul is talking about togetherness>and uses 3 words: SUGKLHRONOMA, SUSSWMA, SUMMETOCA which start with SU.Actually, they all start with SUN, our old familiar preposition meaning “with” or “together with”. When this preposition is compounded with a verb, the nu assimilates to the phoneme which follows it (or to being the same kind of phoneme, as in SUGKLHRONOMA, where the “G” is not a true gamma, but actually “enga”, the “-ng-” sound as in our “sing”, i.e. the palatal nasal liquid phoneme, because the following kappa is a palatal).We do the same kind of thing in English. For example, English has the negative prefix “in-” (as in “independent”), which has assimilated in our “illegal”, “immobile”, “irregular”, etc. But it is “in-” each time, though in disguise.Regards,Ward http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowersRev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.auAUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
Theological Dictionary of the New TestamentTogetherness in Eph 3:6
Togetherness in Eph 3:6 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 30 00:55:43 EST 2001
Togetherness in Eph 3:6 Towards a semantic definition of Greek Middle on 10/29/01 4:46 PM, B. Ward Powers wrote:>> Before I started looking over Ephesians today, I was reading a book on>> Rhetorical Analysis* and for that reason I was perhaps looking for patterns>> of interest when I came to Eph 3:6 where Paul is talking about togetherness>> and uses 3 words: SUGKLHRONOMA, SUSSWMA, SUMMETOCA which start with SU.> > > Actually, they all start with SUN, our old familiar preposition meaning> “with” or “together with”. When this preposition is compounded with a verb,> the nu assimilates to the phoneme which follows it (or to being the same> kind of phoneme, as in SUGKLHRONOMA, where the “G” is not a true gamma, but> actually “enga”, the “-ng-” sound as in our “sing”, i.e. the palatal nasal> liquid phoneme, because the following kappa is a palatal).> > We do the same kind of thing in English. For example, English has the> negative prefix “in-” (as in “independent”), which has assimilated in our> “illegal”, “immobile”, “irregular”, etc. But it is “in-” each time, though> in disguise.Thanks Ward, for spelling out the details of how the NU assimilates, etc. My first draftof this post said: “the are all prefixed by SUN” but for some reason Ididn’t like wording it that way and changed it at the last minute to “whichstart with SU.” This was a probably [not sure] a discourse strategydecision based on the desire to put the morphological issue into thebackground and focus on the semantic pattern of three “together” words. Ifthat was my intent (??) it backfired on me, since my final wording was alittle unorthodox which gave rise to a question about morphology. So mydiscourse strategy had the opposite effect from what was intended, itcreated an ambiguity which drew attention to the very thing that was beingbackgrounded.Funny how this works (or doesn’t work).The parallels you mention in English are intriguing. Didn’t know that N wasassimilated in “Illegal.”Thanks for explaining the mechanisms of phonology in this case. Alwaysamazes me that people can remember stuff like that.warm greetings,Clay — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Togetherness in Eph 3:6Towards a semantic definition of Greek Middle