[] Jn. 8:40 Minton, Ron rminton at bible.edu
Tue Nov 23 10:48:58 EST 2004
[] Re: Accents [] Jn. 8:40 What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative pronounhos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem that a thirdsingular verb should be found, but we find a first person.Does anyone have additional examples of this?Prof. Ron MintonCapital Bible Seminary6511 Princess Garden PkwyLanham, MD 20706W 240-387-1274C 240-432-8925H 301-918-1792
[] Re: Accents[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 23 11:01:06 EST 2004
[] Re: Accents [] Jn. 8:40 On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:48:58 -0500 “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu>writes:> What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative > pronoun> hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem that > a third> singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.> Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > Prof. Ron Minton> Capital Bible Seminary> 6511 Princess Garden Pkwy> Lanham, MD 20706> W 240-387-1274> C 240-432-8925> H 301-918-1792> > —TEXT: NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN LELALHKA hHNHKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .It’s a relative clause describing ANQRWPON which in turn is inapposition to ME which is the object of the inf APOKTEINAI.georgegfsomsel
[] Re: Accents[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Minton, Ron rminton at bible.edu
Tue Nov 23 11:08:11 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 But what is the grammatical term for the nom masc sing taking a third personverb instead of a first person verb?Ron Minton—–Original Message—–From: gfsomsel at juno.com [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:01 AMTo: rminton at bible.eduCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Jn. 8:40On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:48:58 -0500 “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu>writes:> What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative > pronoun hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seemthat a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.> Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > Prof. Ron Minton> Capital Bible Seminary> 6511 Princess Garden Pkwy> Lanham, MD 20706> W 240-387-1274> C 240-432-8925> H 301-918-1792> > —TEXT: NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN LELALHKA hHNHKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .It’s a relative clause describing ANQRWPON which in turn is inapposition to ME which is the object of the inf APOKTEINAI.georgegfsomsel
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 A. Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Tue Nov 23 11:08:35 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 Ron,You are writing about a normal construction that can be found not only inGreek.What do you say in English: “I who is” or “I who am” ?Your problem seems to be that John is using this phaenomenon also where weshould prefer another solution than “me, a man, who am speaking” [Itransferred the verb to the present tense in order to make the constructionclear].ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu>Aan: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: dinsdag 23 november 2004 16:48Onderwerp: [] Jn. 8:40> What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relativepronoun> hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem that athird> singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.> Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > Prof. Ron Minton> Capital Bible Seminary> 6511 Princess Garden Pkwy> Lanham, MD 20706> W 240-387-1274> C 240-432-8925> H 301-918-1792> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 23 11:20:47 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Re: Jn. 8:40 On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:08:11 -0500 “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu>writes:> But what is the grammatical term for the nom masc sing taking a third > person> verb instead of a first person verb?> > Ron Minton> > —–Original Message—–> From: gfsomsel at juno.com [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:01 AM> To: rminton at bible.edu> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn. 8:40> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:48:58 -0500 “Minton, Ron” > <rminton at bible.edu>> writes:> > What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the > relative > > pronoun hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would > seem> that a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first > person.> > Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > > > Prof. Ron Minton> > Capital Bible Seminary> > 6511 Princess Garden Pkwy> > Lanham, MD 20706> > W 240-387-1274> > C 240-432-8925> > H 301-918-1792> > > > —> > TEXT: > NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN > LELALHKA hHN> HKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .> > It’s a relative clause describing ANQRWPON which in turn is in> apposition to ME which is the object of the inf APOKTEINAI.> george> gfsomsel_______________ Now I’m confused. Why would you expect it to be anything other than a 3s since ANQRWPON is that to which hOS . . . LELALHKA refers? BTW: Greek doesn’t have a 3 M.s. finite verb. I think you’ve beenreading Hebrew which does distinguish.georgegfsomsel
[] Jn. 8:40[] Re: Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 D Jongkind dj214 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Nov 23 11:35:40 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 <>Dear Ron,Another example:1 Cor 15:9EGW GAR EIMI O ELACISTOS TWN APOSTOLWN OS OUK EIMI IKANOS KALEISQAI APOSTOLOSI guess I would call it an instance of attraction.Regards,Dirk JongkindWhat is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative pronoun hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem that a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.Does anyone have additional examples of this?
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Re: Jn. 8:40 Wieland Willker willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
Tue Nov 23 11:42:25 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 > What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative > pronoun hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? “Idiom”Best wishes Wieland <><————————————————Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germanymailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.dehttp://www.uni-bremen.de/~wieTextcritical commentary: http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Nov 23 12:13:05 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 At 4:35 PM +0000 11/23/04, D Jongkind wrote:><>Dear Ron,> >Another example:>1 Cor 15:9>EGW GAR EIMI O ELACISTOS TWN APOSTOLWN OS OUK EIMI IKANOS KALEISQAI>APOSTOLOS> >I guess I would call it an instance of attraction.No, attraction is the term used for a relative pronoun that takes the caseof its antecedent. In the present instance the verb of the clause isaccommodated to the antecedent ME of hOS. And it’s not really right to callthe RELATIVE pronoun in this instance a “third-singular pronoun”; theRELATIVE pronoun can agree with a pronoun of ANY number:You might compare the construction of the opening of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt6:9):PATER hHMWN hO EN TOIS OURANOIS …Here the attributive phrase hO EN TOIS OURANOIS is equivalent to a relativeclause, as in the standard English, “who art in Heaven …” Note the”art”–the archaic second-singular verb; so in German “der Du in Himmelbist …”The relative pronoun may fit with a first- or second-person pronoun, evenif it’s most common to find it with third-person nouns and pronouns.>What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative>pronoun hOS seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem>that a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.>Does anyone have additional examples of this?— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Minton, Ron rminton at bible.edu
Tue Nov 23 12:23:21 EST 2004
[] Re: Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 I meant: But what is the grammatical term for the nom masc sing prn taking afirst person verb instead of a third person verb?Ron Minton—–Original Message—–From: gfsomsel at juno.com [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:21 AMCc: rminton at bible.edu; at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Jn. 8:40On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu> writes:> But what is the grammatical term for the nom masc sing prn taking a third > person verb instead of a first person verb?> Ron Minton> > —–Original Message—–> From: gfsomsel at juno.com [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:01 AM> To: rminton at bible.edu> Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn. 8:40> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:48:58 -0500 “Minton, Ron” > <rminton at bible.edu>> writes:> > What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the > relative > > pronoun hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would > seem> that a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first > person.> > Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > > > Prof. Ron Minton> > Capital Bible Seminary> > 6511 Princess Garden Pkwy> > Lanham, MD 20706> > W 240-387-1274> > C 240-432-8925> > H 301-918-1792> > > > —> > TEXT: > NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN > LELALHKA hHN> HKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .> > It’s a relative clause describing ANQRWPON which in turn is in> apposition to ME which is the object of the inf APOKTEINAI.> george> gfsomsel_______________ Now I’m confused. Why would you expect it to be anything other than a 3s since ANQRWPON is that to which hOS . . . LELALHKA refers? BTW: Greek doesn’t have a 3 M.s. finite verb. I think you’ve beenreading Hebrew which does distinguish.georgegfsomsel
[] Re: Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Minton, Ron rminton at bible.edu
Tue Nov 23 12:31:51 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 Yes, Carl, this is what I was examining. I wondered if there was a specificname to the situation in which the nom. masc. sing. rel. prn can take afirst, second, or third person verb.Ron Minton—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:13 PMTo: D JongkindCc: You might compare the construction of the opening of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt6:9): PATER hHMWN hO EN TOIS OURANOIS …Here the attributive phrase hO EN TOIS OURANOIS is equivalent to a relativeclause, as in the standard English, “who art in Heaven …” Note the”art”–the archaic second-singular verb; so in German “der Du in Himmelbist …”The relative pronoun may fit with a first- or second-person pronoun, evenif it’s most common to find it with third-person nouns and pronouns.>What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the relative>pronoun hOS seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem>that a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.>Does anyone have additional examples of this?— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Iver Larsen ialarsen at multitechweb.com
Tue Nov 23 12:44:55 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Re: Accents > > What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the> relative pronoun> hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It would seem> that a third> singular verb should be found, but we find a first person.> Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > Prof. Ron MintonOther examples:Rom 2:23: hOS EN NOMWi KAUCASAI – you who boast in the lawConfer also several substantive participles in 2:21-2, e.g.:hO LEGWN MH MOICEUEIN, MOICEUEIS – you who say that one should not commitadultery, you commit adultery.Acts 22:4: hOS TAUTHN THN hODON EDIWXA – I who persecuted this wayIt looks like the Greek relative hOS, which we tend to equate with “who”,ought to be equated with one of the following: I who – you who – he/she who,depending on context.I suppose one could say that the personal pronoun is incorporated within therelative.In the Friberg tags, the hOS is marked as -1S or -2S, just like theparticiple LEGWN above is marked as -2S. Such markings are derived fromcontext rather than the word itself.Iver Larsen
[] Jn. 8:40[] Re: Accents
[] Jn. 8:40 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 23 12:46:51 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:23:21 -0500 “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu>writes:> I meant: But what is the grammatical term for the nom masc sing prn > taking a> first person verb instead of a third person verb?> Ron Minton> > —–Original Message—–> From: gfsomsel at juno.com [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:21 AM> Cc: rminton at bible.edu; at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn. 8:40> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 “Minton, Ron” <rminton at bible.edu> writes:> > But what is the grammatical term for the nom masc sing prn taking > a third > > person verb instead of a first person verb?> > Ron Minton> > > > —–Original Message—–> > From: gfsomsel at juno.com [mailto:gfsomsel at juno.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:01 AM> > To: rminton at bible.edu> > Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org> > Subject: Re: [] Jn. 8:40> > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:48:58 -0500 “Minton, Ron” > > <rminton at bible.edu>> > writes:> > > What is the Greek construction called in John 8:40 when the > > relative > > > pronoun hos seems to be the subject of the verb I speak? It > would > > seem> > that a third singular verb should be found, but we find a first > > person.> > > Does anyone have additional examples of this?> > > > > > Prof. Ron Minton> > > Capital Bible Seminary> > > 6511 Princess Garden Pkwy> > > Lanham, MD 20706> > > W 240-387-1274> > > C 240-432-8925> > > H 301-918-1792> > > > > > —> > > > TEXT: > > NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN > > LELALHKA hHN> > HKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .> > > > It’s a relative clause describing ANQRWPON which in turn is in> > apposition to ME which is the object of the inf APOKTEINAI.> > george> > gfsomsel> _______________> > Now I’m confused. Why would you expect it to be anything other than > a 3> s since ANQRWPON is that to which hOS . . . LELALHKA refers? > > BTW: Greek doesn’t have a 3 M.s. finite verb. I think you’ve been> reading Hebrew which does distinguish.> > george> gfsomsel______________OK. I think I understand now. I believe that would be called”anacoluthon” (basically meaning “it does not follow”). georgegfsomsel
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Nov 23 13:20:26 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 At 12:31 PM -0500 11/23/04, Minton, Ron wrote:>Yes, Carl, this is what I was examining. I wondered if there was a specific>name to the situation in which the nom. masc. sing. rel. prn can take a>first, second, or third person verb.Would it leave some sense of incompleteness to accept that there is no namefor this because it is relatively rare and by no means unintelligible? DanWallace has gone quite far enough in creating new grammatical tags to referto constructions that serve no function other than assisting translationinto English. I guess that’s OK if one learns Greek primarily in order totranslate it into English rather than in order to read and understand it.At 8:44 PM +0300 11/23/04, Iver Larsen wrote:> >In the Friberg tags, the hOS is marked as -1S or -2S, just like the>participle LEGWN above is marked as -2S. Such markings are derived from>context rather than the word itself.That is to say: if hOS is followed by a 1st-person verb, then it’sEnglished as “I who …” (or “we who …”); if it’s follows by a 2nd-personverb, then its Englished as “you who … ” These too are categories thatare gratuitous creations. Of course it’s the Friberg listings that give usumpteen different kinds of “deponent” verbs, isn’t it?At 12:46 PM -0500 11/23/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> >OK. I think I understand now. I believe that would be called>“anacoluthon” (basically meaning “it does not follow”).The term anacoluthon is normally used to refer to a sentence wherein anincomplete sentence (a sentence fragment) is followed by a grammaticalconstruction that cannot properly construe with it. But that’s hardly whatwe have here. Nobody will fault the sentence in English, “When you’ve allread the pamphlet, please return it to me, who brought it here for all toshare.” The subject of “brought” is “who”, which takes the place in thisrelative clause of the subject “I” of a simple sentence that would be “Ibrought it here for all to share.”If you have to have a name to ascribe to every linguistic phenomenon, yourgrammatical categories are going to fill a pretty large book. WhatAristotle did in the Nicomachean Ethics when he found that he coulddescribe a vice that was either the excess or deficiency of a known virtue,he called it ANWNUMOS. If you care to English that, it’s “anonymous” or”nameless.” There’s something of a philosophical problem in supposing thatthings don’t exist unless we can assign them proper names. According toGenesis 2 God brought all the creatures to hA-ADAM to give names to, but itseems to me that biologists are still making a practice of assigning namesto newly-discovered plants and animals. And so too there appears to be somedira cupido to assign names to every conceivable grammatical feature, lestit be thought otherwise to want existence.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 23 13:53:56 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:20:26 -0500 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> At 12:46 PM -0500 11/23/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> >> >OK. I think I understand now. I believe that would be called> >”anacoluthon” (basically meaning “it does not follow”).> > The term anacoluthon is normally used to refer to a sentence wherein > an> incomplete sentence (a sentence fragment) is followed by a > grammatical> construction that cannot properly construe with it. But that’s > hardly what> we have here. Nobody will fault the sentence in English, “When > you’ve all> read the pamphlet, please return it to me, who brought it here for > all to> share.” The subject of “brought” is “who”, which takes the place in > this> relative clause of the subject “I” of a simple sentence that would > be “I> brought it here for all to share.”> > If you have to have a name to ascribe to every linguistic > phenomenon, your> grammatical categories are going to fill a pretty large book. What> Aristotle did in the Nicomachean Ethics when he found that he could> describe a vice that was either the excess or deficiency of a known > virtue,> he called it ANWNUMOS. If you care to English that, it’s “anonymous” > or> “nameless.” There’s something of a philosophical problem in > supposing that> things don’t exist unless we can assign them proper names. According > to> Genesis 2 God brought all the creatures to hA-ADAM to give names to, > but it> seems to me that biologists are still making a practice of assigning > names> to newly-discovered plants and animals. And so too there appears to > be some> dira cupido to assign names to every conceivable grammatical > feature, lest> it be thought otherwise to want existence.> — > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/> —Yes, but he is concerned with the problem of having (if I mayoverliteralize the translation)”Now you seek to kill me, a man who ** I told you the truth ** “where the 3 s is transformed into 1 s. Your example seems somewhatdifferent in that the “me”, while 1 s. functions as the object and iscontinued by the 3 s. georgegfsomsel
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Nov 23 14:03:42 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 At 1:53 PM -0500 11/23/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> >Yes, but he is concerned with the problem of having (if I may>overliteralize the translation)> >“Now you seek to kill me, a man who ** I told you the truth ** “> >where the 3 s is transformed into 1 s. Your example seems somewhat>different in that the “me”, while 1 s. functions as the object and is>continued by the 3 s.NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN LELALHKA hHNHKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .What actually are you saying, George? that ANQRWPON is third singular andis the real antecedent of hOS? I’d understand ANQRWPON as appositional toME and I’d still understand ME as the antecedent of hOS and the factoraccounting for the first-person verb LALHKA (as well as HKOUSA). Was itsome other “person” (ANQRWPOS) hOS LELALHKEN and HKOUSEN? No, I was theANQRWPOS, and it was I who LELALHKA and HKOUSA.You’re well aware that you’re “overliteralizing” the translation: there isno EGW as subject of these first-singular verbs; the subject is hOS, andhOS is NOT distinctively third-person in reference even if it functionswith third-person verbs in by far the majority of cases.I must say, I’m glad we’re talking about Greek, even if it could bequestioned whether we’re “saying” anything.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 23 14:40:54 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 (further) [] Jn. 8:40 On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:03:42 -0500 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> At 1:53 PM -0500 11/23/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> >> >Yes, but he is concerned with the problem of having (if I may> >overliteralize the translation)> >> >”Now you seek to kill me, a man who ** I told you the truth ** “> >> >where the 3 s is transformed into 1 s. Your example seems > somewhat> >different in that the “me”, while 1 s. functions as the object and > is> >continued by the 3 s.> > NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN > LELALHKA hHN> HKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .> > What actually are you saying, George? that ANQRWPON is third > singular and> is the real antecedent of hOS? I’d understand ANQRWPON as > appositional to> ME and I’d still understand ME as the antecedent of hOS and the > factor> accounting for the first-person verb LALHKA (as well as HKOUSA). Was > it> some other “person” (ANQRWPOS) hOS LELALHKEN and HKOUSEN? No, I was > the> ANQRWPOS, and it was I who LELALHKA and HKOUSA.> > You’re well aware that you’re “overliteralizing” the translation: > there is> no EGW as subject of these first-singular verbs; the subject is hOS, > and> hOS is NOT distinctively third-person in reference even if it > functions> with third-person verbs in by far the majority of cases.> > I must say, I’m glad we’re talking about Greek, even if it could be> questioned whether we’re “saying” anything.> — > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/___________Of course there is no EGW in this passage. Every schoolboy knows,however, that the person is contained in the verb in Greek [LELAKHKA –“I spoke”]. I think it tends to be a problem with the difference betweenthe way the Greek in this passage handles it and the way in which wewould normally handle it in English. In English we would not say “I am aman who [I] spoke the truth” but rather “I am a man who spoke the truth.” The tendency is to view “who spoke the truth” as 3 s. (whether or notthat is inherently true though I tend to think that was how we construedit when I was in school). georgegfsomsel
[] Jn. 8:40 (further)[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Barbara D. Colt babc2 at comcast.net
Tue Nov 23 14:54:53 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 On 23 Nov 2004 at 13:20, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> At 12:31 PM -0500 11/23/04, Minton, Ron wrote:> >Yes, Carl, this is what I was examining. I wondered if there was a> >specific name to the situation in which the nom. masc. sing. rel. prn can> >take a first, second, or third person verb.> > Would it leave some sense of incompleteness to accept that there is no name> for this because it is relatively rare and by no means unintelligible? Dan> Wallace has gone quite far enough in creating new grammatical tags to refer> to constructions that serve no function other than assisting translation> into English. I guess that’s OK if one learns Greek primarily in order to> translate it into English rather than in order to read and understand it.> What is it that you want to give a special name to? The case of the relative pronoun is determined by its job in the clause, but its person and number must agree with the antecedent. What’s the problem?Barbara D. Colt, mailto:babc2 at comcast.netSt John the Evangelist, San Francisco>From envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitablenessGood Lord, deliver us.
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Tue Nov 23 15:05:40 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Re: Change of prefered Language On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:54:53 -0800 “Barbara D. Colt ” <babc2 at comcast.net>writes:> > > On 23 Nov 2004 at 13:20, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > > > At 12:31 PM -0500 11/23/04, Minton, Ron wrote:> > >Yes, Carl, this is what I was examining. I wondered if there was > a> > >specific name to the situation in which the nom. masc. sing. rel. > prn can> > >take a first, second, or third person verb.> > > > Would it leave some sense of incompleteness to accept that there > is no name> > for this because it is relatively rare and by no means > unintelligible? Dan> > Wallace has gone quite far enough in creating new grammatical tags > to refer> > to constructions that serve no function other than assisting > translation> > into English. I guess that’s OK if one learns Greek primarily in > order to> > translate it into English rather than in order to read and > understand it.> > > What is it that you want to give a special name to? The case of the > > relative pronoun is determined by its job in the clause, but its > person > and number must agree with the antecedent. What’s the problem?> > Barbara D. Colt, mailto:babc2 at comcast.net> St John the Evangelist, San Francisco> >From envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitableness> Good Lord, deliver us.___________If I am understanding Ron correctly, his concern is not with the relativebut with the verb which happens to be 1 s. pf [LELALHKA] and 1 s. aor.[HKOUSA]. georgegfsomsel
[] Jn. 8:40[] Re: Change of prefered Language
[] Jn. 8:40 Barbara D. Colt babc2 at comcast.net
Tue Nov 23 16:31:02 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 On 23 Nov 2004 at 14:40, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:03:42 -0500 “Carl W. Conrad”> <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> > At 1:53 PM -0500 11/23/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> > >> > >Yes, but he is concerned with the problem of having (if I may> > >overliteralize the translation)> > >> > >”Now you seek to kill me, a man who ** I told you the truth ** “> > >> > >where the 3 s is transformed into 1 s. Your example seems > > somewhat> > >different in that the “me”, while 1 s. functions as the object and > > is> > >continued by the 3 s.> > > > NUN DE ZHTEITE ME APOKTEINAI ANQRWPON hOS THN ALHQEIAN hUMIN > > LELALHKA hHN> > HKOUSA PARA TOU QEOU . . .> > > > What actually are you saying, George? that ANQRWPON is third > > singular and> > is the real antecedent of hOS? I’d understand ANQRWPON as > > appositional to> > ME and I’d still understand ME as the antecedent of hOS and the > > factor> > accounting for the first-person verb LALHKA (as well as HKOUSA). Was it> > some other “person” (ANQRWPOS) hOS LELALHKEN and HKOUSEN? No, I was the> > ANQRWPOS, and it was I who LELALHKA and HKOUSA.> > > > You’re well aware that you’re “overliteralizing” the translation: > > there is> > no EGW as subject of these first-singular verbs; the subject is hOS, and> > hOS is NOT distinctively third-person in reference even if it functions> > with third-person verbs in by far the majority of cases.> > > > I must say, I’m glad we’re talking about Greek, even if it could be> > questioned whether we’re “saying” anything.> > — Couldn’t it be simply that the writer made a mistake? People mess up that sort of sentence in English all the time and then argue about it. I’d be surprised if the Greeks were much different.Barbara D. Colt, mailto:babc2 at comcast.netSt John the Evangelist, San Francisco>From envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitablenessGood Lord, deliver us.
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40
[] Jn. 8:40 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Tue Nov 23 19:10:37 EST 2004
[] Jn. 8:40 [] Jn. 8:40 On Nov 23, 2004, at 1:40 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> Of course there is no EGW in this passage. Every schoolboy knows,> however, that the person is contained in the verb in Greek [LELAKHKA —> “I spoke”]. I think it tends to be a problem with the difference > between> the way the Greek in this passage handles it and the way in which we> would normally handle it in English. In English we would not say “I > am a> man who [I] spoke the truth” but rather “I am a man who spoke the > truth.”> The tendency is to view “who spoke the truth” as 3 s. (whether or not> that is inherently true though I tend to think that was how we > construed> it when I was in school).George, I think it is (not intentionally) misleading to put the “I” in brackets in the first sentence, but not similarly bracket an understood “he” in the second. This would make the second sentence sound every bit as awkward as the first, wouldn’t it? At any rate, this is English, and I don’t think the Greek of John 8.40 is unnatural Greek.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
[] Jn. 8:40[] Jn. 8:40