Singular or Plural? Dmitriy Reznik dpreznik at usa.net
Tue Oct 12 19:19:13 EDT 1999
Matt 19:9 Singular or Plural? Dear friends,In Jude 2 (ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH – Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied) “be multiplied” is used in sing. Does it refer to all three nouns or only to AGAPH?Thank you.Dmitriy Reznik
Matt 19:9Singular or Plural?
Singular or Plural? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 12 19:37:44 EDT 1999
Singular or Plural? Smooth breathings At 7:19 PM -0500 10/12/99, Dmitriy Reznik wrote:>Dear friends,> >In Jude 2 (ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH – Mercy unto you and>peace and love be multiplied) “be multiplied” is used in sing. Does it>refer to all three nouns or only to AGAPH?All three, I think; it’s quite common, even when a verb must be understoodwith several subjects, for it to be construed only with the nearest one.But I would suggest that this not be considered so much a singular verbwith a plural subject as an instance of ellipsis, where the singular verbactually expressed with the third subject is to be understood with each ofthe other two subjects, so that we are to understand: ELEOS hUMINPLHQUNQEIH KAI EIRHNH PLHQUNQEIH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH. But that would lookawkward in Greek as in English; it needs to be stated only once to beunderstood with each of the other subjects.Alternatively one could understand an ESTW or ESTWSAN with ELEOS and EIRHNHas implicitly present, but I think it’s easier to understand PLHQUNQEIH asreferring to all three subjects.An alternative that i think ought NOT to be taken seriously is thatPLHQUNQEIH is understood as a singular verb governing a neuter pluralconstituted collectively by ELEOS KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH. I really thinkellipsis is what’s involved here.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Singular or Plural?Smooth breathings
Singular or Plural? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Oct 12 21:44:34 EDT 1999
Smooth breathings Spiritual death or Physical death? To: Dmitriy Reznik,<< In Jude 2 (ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH – Mercy unto youand peace and love be multiplied) “be multiplied” is used in sing. Does itrefer to all three nouns or only to AGAPH? >>This is called the “Pindaric construction,” and the verb in the singularrefers to all three nouns. Also, this salutation seems to have originatedfrom the book of Daniel and evolved along the following lines:EIRHNH hUMIN PLHQUNQEIH (Dan 6:26 LXX);XARIS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH PLHQUNQEIH (1 Pet 1:2 & 2 Pet 1:2); and then:ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH (Jude 2).One might translate something like:”May peace be multiplied to you”;”May grace and peace be multiplied to you”; and”May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.”Note how hUMIN gets ‘pushed back’ as each new noun is added to the salutation.-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)
Smooth breathingsSpiritual death or Physical death?
Singular or Plural? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 13 06:32:56 EDT 1999
Jn 20.22 Matt 19:9 To: Carl W. Conrad,<< All three, I think; it’s quite common, even when a verb must beunderstood with several subjects, for it to be construed only with thenearest one. But I would suggest that this not be considered so much asingular verb with a plural subject as an instance of ellipsis, where thesingular verb actually expressed with the third subject is to be understoodwith each of the other two subjects, so that we are to understand: ELEOShUMIN PLHQUNQEIH KAI EIRHNH PLHQUNQEIH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH. But that wouldlook awkward in Greek as in English; it needs to be stated only once to beunderstood with each of the other subjects. Alternatively one couldunderstand an ESTW or ESTWSAN with ELEOS and EIRHNH as implicitly present,but I think it’s easier to understand PLHQUNQEIH as referring to all threesubjects. >>That seems to be a reasonable enough explanation of Jude 2, although Ithink it simpler to think of it in terms of a Pindaric construction (acompound subject with a verb in the singular). For example,hEWS AN PARELQHi hO OURANOS KAI hH GH (Mt 5:18).Similarly, we have:hOTI SARX KAI hAIMA BASILEIAN QEOU KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI (1 Cor 15:50).With these two examples, I doubt one would want to think that they are mereellipsis, since with “heaven and earth” and “flesh and blood,” it appearsthat it is the totality which is being emphasized.Also:KAI HN hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR QAUMAZONTES (Luke 2:33).Here we have a compound subject with a single verb and a plural participle!So, while your interpretation of Jude 2 as an ellipsis is reasonableenough, I see nothing wrong with just assuming that it is a Pindaricconstruction. What do you think?-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)
Jn 20.22Matt 19:9
Singular or Plural? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Oct 13 07:00:37 EDT 1999
Smooth breathings Singular or Plural? At 5:32 AM -0500 10/13/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Carl W. Conrad,> ><< All three, I think; it’s quite common, even when a verb must be>understood with several subjects, for it to be construed only with the>nearest one. But I would suggest that this not be considered so much a>singular verb with a plural subject as an instance of ellipsis, where the>singular verb actually expressed with the third subject is to be understood>with each of the other two subjects, so that we are to understand: ELEOS>hUMIN PLHQUNQEIH KAI EIRHNH PLHQUNQEIH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH. But that would>look awkward in Greek as in English; it needs to be stated only once to be>understood with each of the other subjects. Alternatively one could>understand an ESTW or ESTWSAN with ELEOS and EIRHNH as implicitly present,>but I think it’s easier to understand PLHQUNQEIH as referring to all three>subjects. >>> >That seems to be a reasonable enough explanation of Jude 2, although I>think it simpler to think of it in terms of a Pindaric construction (a>compound subject with a verb in the singular). For example,> >hEWS AN PARELQHi hO OURANOS KAI hH GH (Mt 5:18).> >Similarly, we have:> >hOTI SARX KAI hAIMA BASILEIAN QEOU KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI (1 Cor 15:50).> >With these two examples, I doubt one would want to think that they are mere>ellipsis, since with “heaven and earth” and “flesh and blood,” it appears>that it is the totality which is being emphasized.> >Also:> >KAI HN hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR QAUMAZONTES (Luke 2:33).> >Here we have a compound subject with a single verb and a plural participle!Good example, although I don’t really think this is quite the same thing;it IS a matter of agreement, of course, but it involves the periphrasticimperfect which is more common in Koine than earlier; of course one mightexpect HSAN … QAUMAZONTES with more careful writing, but this is prettyclearly an instance of “constructio ad sensum,” which is hardly a realgrammatical category in its own right–rather a way of referring to a sortof grammatical anacoluthon wherein the speaker/writer starts with oneconception of the construction and changes halfway through to a differentconception of it. This is far more common than we acknowledge, I think–andI suspect that we all do it conversationally very frequently without realperil of being misunderstood. I suspect too that when passages like theabove (Lk 2:33) are read aloud the inconcinnity of HN and QAUMAZONTES goesunnoticed, although it may “glare out” at you when you read it on a page.>So, while your interpretation of Jude 2 as an ellipsis is reasonable>enough, I see nothing wrong with just assuming that it is a Pindaric>construction. What do you think?Quite honestly, I think it’s “six of one and half a dozen of the other”;I’d see the “Pindaric” construction as essentially elliptical; Greek, morethan some other languages, tends not to spell out what is obvious, tends toadd new elements to a construction already introduced and omit the elementsalready used and implicitly carried forward; the process can work bothways: with all the elements stated in the first of parallel repeatedconstructions or with one or more of those understood elements in theearlier ones held until the last of the parallel repeated constructions.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Smooth breathingsSingular or Plural?
Singular or Plural? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Oct 13 08:05:41 EDT 1999
Singular or Plural? Spiritual death or Physical death? To: Carl W. Conrad,SCM: << KAI HN hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR QAUMAZONTES (Luke 2:33). Here wehave a compound subject with a single verb and a plural participle! >>CWC: << Good example, although I don’t really think this is quite the samething; it IS a matter of agreement, of course, but it involves theperiphrastic imperfect which is more common in Koine than earlier; ofcourse one might expect HSAN … QAUMAZONTES with more careful writing, butthis is pretty clearly an instance of “constructio ad sensum,” which ishardly a real grammatical category in its own right–rather a way ofreferring to a sort of grammatical anacoluthon wherein the speaker/writerstarts with one conception of the construction and changes halfway throughto a different conception of it. >>That makes sense to me. I almost didn’t include the example of Lk 2:33 inmy message, for it doesn’t seem to be the same as the other examples. Smytheven suggests that HN was originally plural, but I don’t know if one couldassume that Luke knew that.SCM: << So, while your interpretation of Jude 2 as an ellipsis isreasonable enough, I see nothing wrong with just assuming that it is aPindaric construction. What do you think? >>CWC: << Quite honestly, I think it’s “six of one and half a dozen of theother”; I’d see the “Pindaric” construction as essentially elliptical; … >>But which is it, six or a half a dozen? <g> FWIW … I felt that Ipresented two examples (Mt 5:18 & 1 Cor 15:50) which couldn’t be explanedas an ellipsis.-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)
Singular or Plural?Spiritual death or Physical death?
Singular or Plural? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Oct 13 09:50:11 EDT 1999
Spiritual death or Physical death? Spiritual death or Physical death? At 7:05 AM -0500 10/13/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Carl W. Conrad,> >SCM: << KAI HN hO PATHR AUTOU KAI hH MHTHR QAUMAZONTES (Luke 2:33). Here we>have a compound subject with a single verb and a plural participle! >>> >CWC: << Good example, although I don’t really think this is quite the same>thing; it IS a matter of agreement, of course, but it involves the>periphrastic imperfect which is more common in Koine than earlier; of>course one might expect HSAN … QAUMAZONTES with more careful writing, but>this is pretty clearly an instance of “constructio ad sensum,” which is>hardly a real grammatical category in its own right–rather a way of>referring to a sort of grammatical anacoluthon wherein the speaker/writer>starts with one conception of the construction and changes halfway through>to a different conception of it. >>> >That makes sense to me. I almost didn’t include the example of Lk 2:33 in>my message, for it doesn’t seem to be the same as the other examples. Smyth>even suggests that HN was originally plural, but I don’t know if one could>assume that Luke knew that.> >SCM: << So, while your interpretation of Jude 2 as an ellipsis is>reasonable enough, I see nothing wrong with just assuming that it is a>Pindaric construction. What do you think? >>> >CWC: << Quite honestly, I think it’s “six of one and half a dozen of the>other”; I’d see the “Pindaric” construction as essentially elliptical; … >>> >But which is it, six or a half a dozen? <g> FWIW … I felt that I>presented two examples (Mt 5:18 & 1 Cor 15:50) which couldn’t be explaned>as an ellipsis.For you (MEN) it’s six, for me (DE) it’s half a dozen. ;-)hEWS AN PARELQHi hO OURANOS KAI hH GH (Mt 5:18).I have no difficulty reading this as equivalent to hEWS AN PARELQHi hOOURANOS KAI PARELQHi hH GH, nor have I any difficulty readinghOTI SARX KAI hAIMA BASILEIAN QEOU KLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI (1 Cor 15:50).as hOTI SARX OU DUNATAI BASILEAN QEOU KLHRONOMHSAI KAI hAIMA BASILEAN QEOUKLHRONOMHSAI OU DUNATAI —However, I think one might just as well argue that hO OURANOS KAI hH GH inthe one verse and SARX KAI hAIMA in the second verse each constitute aunified expression–a hendiadys–and for that reason these are not to beunderstood as violations of the principle of agreement. I note that Smythlimits “Pindaric construction” pretty much to poetry and to 3rd singularforms of EIMI and GINOMAI. I think it’s questionable whether this sort ofpoetic convention impacts upon these particular Koine instances.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Spiritual death or Physical death?Spiritual death or Physical death?
[] Jude 2 – Again rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Wed Dec 3 08:00:41 EST 2008
[] hHiDEIS Mt 25:26 [] Jude 2 – Again Jude 2-ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIHGiven that PLHQUNQEIH is singular, 3rd person, is that reason to think that the author meant only to apply it to AGAPH and not to ELEOS or EIRHNH?Could the author be writing-Mercy to youand peaceand love (may it be multiplied)Roger Hutchinson
[] hHiDEIS Mt 25:26[] Jude 2 – Again
[] Jude 2 – Again nebarry at verizon.net nebarry at verizon.net
Wed Dec 3 08:08:10 EST 2008
[] Jude 2 – Again [] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN) Original Message:—————–From: rhutchin at aol.comDate: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:00:41 -0500To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Jude 2 – Again>>Jude 2-ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIHGiven that PLHQUNQEIH is singular, 3rd person, is that reason to think thatthe author meant only to apply it to AGAPH and not to ELEOS or EIRHNH?Could the author be writing-Mercy to youand peaceand love (may it be multiplied)<<So he he’s willing to give up some love, but he’s stingy on mercy andpeace? :)Seriously, when such a series is listed, it’s not uncommon for the verbgrammatically to refer only to the last subject in Greek, and so besingular, although ad sensum it’s to be taken with all the subjects. Another way to say this is that if a verb may be supplied in context for aparticular nominative subject, go ahead and supply it. This is so commonthat it should be the default reading, and if otherwise, the reader hadbetter come up with good textual or contextual reasons to support his case.Barryhttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog——————————————————————–mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
[] Jude 2 – Again[] Romans 1:26 αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (hAI TE GAR QHLEIAI AUTWN)
[] Jude 2 – Again Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Dec 3 08:22:11 EST 2008
[] Jude 2 – Again [] Jude 2 – Again On Dec 3, 2008, at 8:00 AM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:> Jude 2-> > ELEOS hUMIN KAI EIRHNH KAI AGAPH PLHQUNQEIH> > Given that PLHQUNQEIH is singular, 3rd person, is that reason to > think that the author meant only to apply it to AGAPH and not to > ELEOS or EIRHNH?No.> > > Could the author be writing-> > Mercy to you> > and peace> > and love (may it be multiplied)It’s common enough for a verb to agree with only one of its subjects. I’d take the hUMIN also with PLHQUNQEIH, and I’d understand PLHQUNQEIH as a middle sense (intransitive) rather than as a passive: “May mercy and peace and love abound for you” or “May your mercy and peace and love increase exponentially.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Jude 2 – Again[] Jude 2 – Again