Luke 5:7 Kenneth Litwak javajedi2 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 18 00:10:17 EDT 2001
The long ending of Mark Luke 5:7 I have some questions on the first half of Luke5:7:KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOS en TW hETERW PLOIW TOUELONTAS SULLABESQAI AUTOIS1. When is it legitimate to take the definite articleas a possessive? The first TOIS construciton isclealry missing AUTWN or the like, and I’m wonderingif the article alone is considered to do that job? 2. TOU plus an infinitive is common, but what aboutthe aorist participle between the two? I know theparti8ciple can be used as an imperative, but as partof a compound infinitive? Is it “to, afterhavingcome, help” or “to come and help”?3. Why is this followed by a dative, not anaccusative?Thanks.Ken “To come help with them?”__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.http://buzz.yahoo.com/
The long ending of MarkLuke 5:7
Luke 5:7 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Mon Jun 18 11:33:30 EDT 2001
Luke 5:7 TOU hHLIOU EKLIPONTOS At 05:10 18/06/01, you wrote:> I have some questions on the first half of Luke>5:7:>KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOS en TW hETERW PLOIW TOU>ELONTAS SULLABESQAI AUTOISKen:Would it help clear things up for you by pointing out a typo – METOCOIS is correct.So this dispenses with your contention that:>1. The first TOIS construciton is>clealry missing AUTWN or the like, and I’m wondering>if the article alone is considered to do that job?Literally,” and they signalled to those participating in the other boat to come and help them “All the information necessary to arrive at this translation is available in BAGD:KATANEUW:signal by means of a nod TINI to someone.METOCOS:sharing or participating in w. gen. of the pers. or thingSULLAMBANW:Again, BAGD notes: take hold of together, then support, aid, help (Aeschyl.+) w. dat. of the one to whom help is givenI think this answers your queries, except perhaps:>2. TOU plus an infinitive is common, but what about>the aorist participle between the two? I know the>parti8ciple can be used as an imperative, but as part>of a compound infinitive? Is it “to, afterhaving>come, help” or “to come and help”?Here you have an articular infinitive, with the subject in the accusative ( perfectly normal Greek construction, I should think? ) with, as Fitzmyer points out, ” a circumstantial participle to denote purpose “.If you have access to “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics ” you will find a section devoted to: >>>1. Adverbial (or Circumstantial): modifies the verb, answering the question When? (temporal), How? (means, manner), Why? (purpose, cause), etc. (62240)<<<and Wallace amplifies this with: >>>>>>d. Cause: because (answers the question, Why?); indicates the cause or reason or ground of the action of the finite verb; usually precedes its verb (63132)<<<<<<Hope this clears things up.MauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Luke 5:7TOU hHLIOU EKLIPONTOS
Luke 5:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jun 18 14:31:53 EDT 2001
TOU hHLIOU EKLIPONTOS Luke 5:7 At 9:10 PM -0700 6/17/01, Kenneth Litwak wrote:> I have some questions on the first half of Luke>5:7:>KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOS en TW hETERW PLOIW TOU>ELONTAS SULLABESQAI AUTOISIt’s easier to work from a correct Greek text: KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOISEN TWi hETERWi PLOIWi TOU ELQONTAS SULLABESQAI AUTOIS.>1. When is it legitimate to take the definite article>as a possessive? The first TOIS construciton is>clealry missing AUTWN or the like, and I’m wondering>if the article alone is considered to do that job?Yes, I would say so; this is quite standard as a usage of the article. Onthe other hand, some Hellenistic writers probably would have added an AUTWNto TOIS METOCOIS.>2. TOU plus an infinitive is common, but what about>the aorist participle between the two? I know the>participle can be used as an imperative, but as part>of a compound infinitive? Is it “to, afterhaving>come, help” or “to come and help”?Yes: it’s either or both: “to come and assist them” or “having come toassist them”–i.e. the aorist participle preceding serves to indicate thefirst action followed by the second action indicated (in this case) by theinfinitive. But this would be the same construction if it were in theindicative: hOI METOCOI ELQONTES SUNELABONTO AUTOIS.>3. Why is this followed by a dative, not an>accusative?Because the verb SULLAMBANESQAI (with prefix SUN-) ordinarily takes adative complement (you can check this in a dictionary). Here’s LSJ onSULLAMBANW:VI. c. dat. pers., take pert with another, assist him, ou tois athumois hêtuchê x. S.Fr.927, cf. E.Med.813, Hdt.6.125, etc.; ta dunata têi polei x.Ar.Ec.861; s. tisi ti take part with or assist them in a thing, Id.Lys.540(lyr.), X.Cyr.7.5.49, etc.; s. tini tinos E.Med.946 , Ar.V.734 (lyr.); s.tini tini D.18.20 : with a Prep., sunelabe gar alla . . es to peithesthaicontributed towards persuading, Hdt.7.6, cf. X.Mem.2.6.28: abs., assist,A.Ch.812 (lyr.), S.Tr.1019 (lyr.), Ar.Eq. 229, Th.1.118; dei dexullambanonta tous theous epikaleesthai while invoking the gods one musthelp oneself, Hp.Insomn.87.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
TOU hHLIOU EKLIPONTOSLuke 5:7
Luke 5:7 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Tue Jun 19 00:06:04 EDT 2001
Revelation 1.4&5 Revelation… At 09:10 PM 6/17/01 -0700, Kenneth Litwak wrote:> I have some questions on the first half of Luke>5:7:>KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOS en TW hETERW PLOIW TOU>ELONTAS SULLABESQAI AUTOIS> >1. When is it legitimate to take the definite article>as a possessive? The first TOIS construciton is>clealry missing AUTWN or the like, and I’m wondering>if the article alone is considered to do that job? In this case, the use of the possessive as in theNRSV’s “So they signaled their partners” is governedby English’s idiomatic considerations, not Greek’s.For exmaple, the AV puts the “their” in italics,signaling that it was added to complete the sense ofthe Greek but not literally present.>2. TOU plus an infinitive is common, but what about>the aorist participle between the two? I know the>parti8ciple can be used as an imperative, but as part>of a compound infinitive? Is it “to, afterhaving>come, help” or “to come and help”?It is a circumstantial participle, and its precisenuance has to be gleaned from the context. As atranslation, “come and help” is nice and idiomatic.>3. Why is this followed by a dative, not an>accusative?When SULLAMBANW means “to help out, aid,” theperson being helped takes the dative and theactivity in which the help is given, if expressed,takes the accusative. In Luke 5:7, the activityis implied.Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35
Revelation 1.4&5Revelation…
Luke 5:7 Kenneth Litwak javajedi2 at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 19 12:18:13 EDT 2001
Luke 5:7 Luke 5:7 Thanks Carl and others for your reply. I’m sorryabout the typo. I got one response off-listsuggesting that ELQONTAS was simply the accusativesubject of the infinitive. All the other responsessee it as circumstantial or the like, and I wouldn’texpect to see the accusative subject between thearticle and infinitive. . Could this be construedthat way, as the accusative subject? Since it isdescribing what Simon signalled, as opposed ot whatJOhn and James did, I wouldn’t think so. Thanks.Ken__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.http://buzz.yahoo.com/
Luke 5:7Luke 5:7
Luke 5:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jun 19 14:34:06 EDT 2001
Luke 5:7 LOOKING FOR BOOK At 9:18 AM -0700 6/19/01, Kenneth Litwak wrote:>Thanks Carl and others for your reply. I’m sorry>about the typo. I got one response off-list>suggesting that ELQONTAS was simply the accusative>subject of the infinitive. All the other responses>see it as circumstantial or the like, and I wouldn’t>expect to see the accusative subject between the>article and infinitive. . Could this be construed>that way, as the accusative subject? Since it is>describing what Simon signalled, as opposed ot what>JOhn and James did, I wouldn’t think so. Thanks.I wouldn’t call ELQONTAS the acc. subject of the infinitive but rather acircumstantial participle governing the IMPLICIT subject accusative of theinfinitive (if it were expresed, it would presumably be AUTOUS–but one ofthe most awkward features of Hellenistic Greek is the number offree-floating forms of AUTOS/H/ON for which one must sometimes make purestabs in the dark to be sure what the antecedent is–although that’s notreally a problem here).– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityHome: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Luke 5:7LOOKING FOR BOOK
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 8 18:27:51 EST 2008
[] EMBRIMAOMAI [] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) How does the Present Active PIMPLHMI change to EPLHSANin the Aorist Active? The PLH- is obviously common,but what happens to the initial PIM-? Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas ____________________________________________________________________________________Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
[] EMBRIMAOMAI[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7)
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) Sarah Madden sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Fri Feb 8 19:00:32 EST 2008
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) [] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) Mitch,My quick guess is that the double “P” is a reduplication, typical of MIverbs (cf. DIDWMI), but the reduplication drops off for the aorist.Sarah MaddenMarylandsarah.r.madden at gmail.comOn 2/8/08, Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com> wrote:> > How does the Present Active PIMPLHMI change to EPLHSAN> in the Aorist Active? The PLH- is obviously common,> but what happens to the initial PIM-?> > Mitch Larramore> Sugar Land, Texas> > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> Be a better friend, newshound, and> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — Sarahsarah.r.madden at gmail.comwork: 301.429.8189
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7)[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7)
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Feb 8 19:32:51 EST 2008
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) [] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) On Feb 8, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Sarah Madden wrote:> Mitch,> My quick guess is that the double “P” is a reduplication, typical of > MI> verbs (cf. DIDWMI), but the reduplication drops off for the aorist.That’s precisely right; and the M is a nasal additive that is common in present-tense stem formation as in TUGCANW (root TUC) LAMBANW (root LAB), LIMPANW (root LIP, an alternative present tense to LEIPW).> On 2/8/08, Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com> wrote:>> >> How does the Present Active PIMPLHMI change to EPLHSAN>> in the Aorist Active? The PLH- is obviously common,>> but what happens to the initial PIM-?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7)[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7)
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) Sarah Madden sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 06:56:22 EST 2008
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7) [] EKEKRAGON in 1 Clement 34.6 Thanks, Carl, for expanding my understanding about nasal additives. I wastutoring some grad students this week (2nd semester Greek grammar) in simpleaorist formations and did not have a quick answer when they asked whyLAMBANW’s root is “LAB” and not “LAMB” — now I can explain things a littlebetter to them.SarahMarylandsarah.r.madden at gmail.comOn Feb 8, 2008 7:32 PM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:> > On Feb 8, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Sarah Madden wrote:> > > Mitch,> > My quick guess is that the double “P” is a reduplication, typical of> > MI> > verbs (cf. DIDWMI), but the reduplication drops off for the aorist.> > That’s precisely right; and the M is a nasal additive that is common> in present-tense stem formation as in TUGCANW (root TUC) LAMBANW (root> LAB), LIMPANW (root LIP, an alternative present tense to LEIPW).> > > On 2/8/08, Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com> wrote:> >>> >> How does the Present Active PIMPLHMI change to EPLHSAN> >> in the Aorist Active? The PLH- is obviously common,> >> but what happens to the initial PIM-?> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > > — Sarahsarah.r.madden at gmail.comwork: 301.429.8189
[] EPLHSAN (Luke 5.7)[] EKEKRAGON in 1 Clement 34.6
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” ajb1212 at ono.com ajb1212 at ono.com
Thu Mar 12 04:48:52 EDT 2009
[] Luke 24:27 [] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” “KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOIS EN TWi hETERWi PLOIWi TOU ELQONTAS SULLABESQAI AUTOIS” (Luke 5:7a).I take it that “TOU ELQONTAS” is purpose or a sort of indirect imperative. Is that correct? Why the accusative after “TOU”? Can someone point me to other GNT examples of this?Thankyou,Andrew J. BirchPalma de Mallorca, Spain
[] Luke 24:27[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS”
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” Sarah Madden sarah.r.madden at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 05:14:31 EDT 2009
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” [] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” Andrew –I’m hazarding a guess here since Greek word order is not always the way itwould be in English. Probably the TOU does not go with the ELQONTAS but withthe infinitive of purpose, TOU … SULLABESAI. The accusativeparticiple, ELQONTAS , seems to be acting more like a direct object to themain verb (KATENEUSAN), but others on the list can be more explicit as tothe function it is performing.Sarah ><>Marylandsarah.r.madden at gmail.comOn Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:48 AM, ajb1212 at ono.com <ajb1212 at ono.com> wrote:> “KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOIS EN TWi hETERWi PLOIWi TOU ELQONTAS> SULLABESQAI AUTOIS” (Luke 5:7a).> > I take it that “TOU ELQONTAS” is purpose or a sort of indirect> imperative. Is that correct? Why the accusative after “TOU”? Can> someone point me to other GNT examples of this?> > Thankyou,> > Andrew J. Birch> Palma de Mallorca, Spain> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — Sarah ><>sarah.r.madden at gmail.comwork: 301.429.8189
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS”[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS”
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 05:45:52 EDT 2009
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS” [] Luke 2.25, 26 HN KECRHMATISMENON Birch egrapse> “KAI KATENEUSAN TOIS METOCOIS EN TWi hETERWi PLOIWi TOU ELQONTAS> SULLABESQAI AUTOIS” (Luke 5:7a).> I take it that “TOU ELQONTAS” is purpose or a sort of indirect> imperative. Is that correct? Why the accusative after “TOU”? Can> someone point me to other GNT examples of this?TOY goes with SYLLABESQAI and accusativeELQONTAS is the doer of SYLLABESQAI. Infinitives can always haveaccusative ‘adjuncts’.In this case, the ‘coming’ has been ‘demoted’ into participle formso that SYLLABESQAI has a natural prominencebetween the two verbal ideas.In addition, the aorist participle implies a progressionof first ELQEIN then SYLLABESQAI, just like when participles areused with finite verbs.for example, if these were finite verbs:ELQONTES SYNELABON ‘having come they joined the project’could be rewritten asHLQON KAI SYNELABON.The same relationship happens with infinitives.One could have upgraded ELQONTAS into an infinitive and producedTOY ELQEIN [AYTOYS] KAI SYLLABESQAI AYTOISThe accusative AYTOYS is optional in this rewrite since the doer isknown from the immediate context. I added it for you to seeanother accusative with the infinitive(s).These structures are basic to Greek and are a model for how you willwant to be writing [or speaking 🙂 ] yourself. E.g.John 1:48PRO TOY SE FILIPON FWNHSAI ‘before the calling in reference to you and Phillip’= ‘before Phillip called you'(it is from context we learn that the accusative SE ‘you’ is thepatient/undergoerand accusative Phillip is the doer of the infinitive ‘to call’. Thegenitive TOY is usedmerely to linnk the infinitive with the preposition here. In yourfirst example Lk 5.7the TOY was used with the infinitive to express purpose/intention.)ERRWSORandall Buth– Randall Buth, PhDwww.biblicalulpan.orgrandallbuth at gmail.comBiblical Language CenterLearn Easily – Progress Further – Remember for Life
[] Luke 5:7a: “TOU ELQONTAS”[] Luke 2.25, 26 HN KECRHMATISMENON