Mark 5:8

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Scott Wells wellsscott at bellsouth.net
Wed Dec 1 11:41:31 EST 2004

 

[] Unicode for typing Greek [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? EXELQE TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON EK TOU ANQRWPOUShould TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON be understood as a vocative in apposition tothe unexpressed subj, or is it a nom of address, or …?Scott Wellsscott.alton.wells at us.army.mil

 

[] Unicode for typing Greek[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Wed Dec 1 14:26:38 EST 2004

 

[] Unicode for typing Greek [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:41:31 -0500 “Scott Wells”<wellsscott at bellsouth.net> writes:> EXELQE TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON EK TOU ANQRWPOU> > Should TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON be understood as a vocative in > apposition to> the unexpressed subj, or is it a nom of address, or …?> Scott Wells> scott.alton.wells at us.army.mil> > —Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative. It is notuncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.georgegfsomsel

 

[] Unicode for typing Greek[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sat Dec 4 17:19:42 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? On Dec 1, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Scott Wells wrote:> EXELQE TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON EK TOU ANQRWPOU> > Should TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON be understood as a vocative in > apposition to> the unexpressed subj, or is it a nom of address, or …?Hi Scott:Vocative is correct. It is important to keep in mind that neuter nouns have the same form in the nominative and vocative. Also, you shouldn’t think of a vocative as being in apposition to an unexpressed subject, since a vocative is not grammatically related to the rest of the sentence.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sat Dec 4 17:21:40 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Teaching Greek in the Church… On Dec 1, 2004, at 1:26 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:41:31 -0500 “Scott Wells”> <wellsscott at bellsouth.net> writes:>> EXELQE TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON EK TOU ANQRWPOU>> >> Should TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON be understood as a vocative in>> apposition to>> the unexpressed subj, or is it a nom of address, or …?>> Scott Wells>> scott.alton.wells at us.army.mil>> >> —> > Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative. It is > not> uncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.But George, the neuter nominative and vocative have the same form, so why consider it nominative when it is clearly a case of address?============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Teaching Greek in the Church…

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Dec 5 06:14:14 EST 2004

 

[] Beginner Struggling with Translating [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:21:40 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo <themelios at charter.net>writes:> On Dec 1, 2004, at 1:26 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> > > Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative. It > is > > not> > uncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.> > But George, the neuter nominative and vocative have the same form, > so > why consider it nominative when it is clearly a case of address?> ============> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI_______________ Agreed, the form is the same. Consider, however, several facts:1. A.T. Robertson notes “but in reality it is not a case at all.”2. Robertson also cites Farrer who conjectured that there was originallyno difference in form but that the difference was due to rapidpronunciation.3. Even in the time of Homer the nominative began to displace thevocative.4. In GoMk there are a number of clear vocatives, but these tend tocluster around the words DIDASKALOS / DIDASKALE and KURIOS / KURIE.5. There are clear instances of the use of the nominative form ratherthan a vocative to function as a vocative in the GoMk such as Mk 14.36ABBA, hO PATHR and 15.34 hO QEOS MOU, hO QEOS MOU.I would therefore tend to prefer to call this a nominative form with avocative function.georgegfsomsel

 

[] Beginner Struggling with Translating[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 5 07:28:24 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? At 6:14 AM -0500 12/5/04, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:>On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:21:40 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo <themelios at charter.net>>writes:>> On Dec 1, 2004, at 1:26 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:>> >> > Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative. It>> is>> > not>> > uncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.>> >> But George, the neuter nominative and vocative have the same form,>> so>> why consider it nominative when it is clearly a case of address?>> ============>> >> Steven Lo Vullo>> Madison, WI>_______________> >Agreed, the form is the same. Consider, however, several facts:> >1. A.T. Robertson notes “but in reality it is not a case at all.”>2. Robertson also cites Farrer who conjectured that there was originally>no difference in form but that the difference was due to rapid>pronunciation.>3. Even in the time of Homer the nominative began to displace the>vocative.I don’t say this is wrong, George, but what’s the evidence for it–at leastso far as the singular is concerned? It is of course true that thenominative plural was used as vocative from way back, but are there Homericnominative singulars used for vocative?>4. In GoMk there are a number of clear vocatives, but these tend to>cluster around the words DIDASKALOS / DIDASKALE and KURIOS / KURIE.>5. There are clear instances of the use of the nominative form rather>than a vocative to function as a vocative in the GoMk such as Mk 14.36>ABBA, hO PATHR and 15.34 hO QEOS MOU, hO QEOS MOU.> >I would therefore tend to prefer to call this a nominative form with a>vocative function.> >george>gfsomsel>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— 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/

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 5 08:04:00 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? At 4:19 PM -0600 12/4/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>On Dec 1, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Scott Wells wrote:> >> EXELQE TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON EK TOU ANQRWPOU>> >> Should TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON be understood as a vocative in>> apposition to>> the unexpressed subj, or is it a nom of address, or …?> >Hi Scott:> >Vocative is correct. It is important to keep in mind that neuter nouns>have the same form in the nominative and vocative. Also, you shouldn’t>think of a vocative as being in apposition to an unexpressed subject,>since a vocative is not grammatically related to the rest of the>sentence.One question I’d raise about this is whether there is a vocative form ofthe article; there’s no question, of course, that the nominative pluralwith the article is used in place of a vocative, but I’d still wonderwhether there are any indisputable instances of a singular vocativedefinite article.– 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/

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sun Dec 5 15:16:54 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Semnatic domain of SARX On Dec 5, 2004, at 5:14 AM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:>> On Dec 1, 2004, at 1:26 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:>> >>> Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative. It>> is>>> not>>> uncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.>> >> But George, the neuter nominative and vocative have the same form,>> so>> why consider it nominative when it is clearly a case of address?> Agreed, the form is the same. Consider, however, several facts:> > 1. A.T. Robertson notes “but in reality it is not a case at all.”Agreed. This is why I told Scott that the vocative is not grammatically related to the rest of the sentence and so should not be considered to be in apposition to the implied subject of the sentence. When I said above, “it is clearly a case of address,” I did not mean grammatical case, but case in the sense of “instance,” i.e., this is an instance of direct address.> 2. Robertson also cites Farrer who conjectured that there was > originally> no difference in form but that the difference was due to rapid> pronunciation.> 3. Even in the time of Homer the nominative began to displace the> vocative.> 4. In GoMk there are a number of clear vocatives, but these tend to> cluster around the words DIDASKALOS / DIDASKALE and KURIOS / KURIE.> 5. There are clear instances of the use of the nominative form rather> than a vocative to function as a vocative in the GoMk such as Mk 14.36> ABBA, hO PATHR and 15.34 hO QEOS MOU, hO QEOS MOU.> > I would therefore tend to prefer to call this a nominative form with a> vocative function.After thinking about this a little more, I think you may be right. The problem is that we are dealing with the neuter gender, and so things get a little ambiguous. But Carl’s comment about the article reminded me of something I had read before about nominatives used in direct address. Wallace has this to say:”The articular use … involves two nuances: address to an inferior and simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of whether the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question can be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the LXX).”He uses Mark 5.8 as an example of an articular nominative used in the address of an inferior. This would fit in well with the theme of Jesus’ authority over unclean spirits. Does this make sense to you?============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Semnatic domain of SARX

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sun Dec 5 15:25:53 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? On Dec 5, 2004, at 7:04 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>> Vocative is correct. It is important to keep in mind that neuter nouns>> have the same form in the nominative and vocative. Also, you shouldn’t>> think of a vocative as being in apposition to an unexpressed subject,>> since a vocative is not grammatically related to the rest of the>> sentence.> > One question I’d raise about this is whether there is a vocative form > of> the article; there’s no question, of course, that the nominative plural> with the article is used in place of a vocative, but I’d still wonder> whether there are any indisputable instances of a singular vocative> definite article.That’s a good question, Carl. The Accordance GNT-T tags the article here as vocative. The displaced GNT has vocative as a variant tag. But this is also the case with the articles and the participles they substantivize in Rom 2.21-22. I suspect this tagging has to do with function more than anything else.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 5 17:18:27 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? At 2:25 PM -0600 12/5/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>On Dec 5, 2004, at 7:04 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >>> Vocative is correct. It is important to keep in mind that neuter nouns>>> have the same form in the nominative and vocative. Also, you shouldn’t>>> think of a vocative as being in apposition to an unexpressed subject,>>> since a vocative is not grammatically related to the rest of the>>> sentence.>> >> One question I’d raise about this is whether there is a vocative form>> of>> the article; there’s no question, of course, that the nominative plural>> with the article is used in place of a vocative, but I’d still wonder>> whether there are any indisputable instances of a singular vocative>> definite article.> >That’s a good question, Carl. The Accordance GNT-T tags the article>here as vocative. The displaced GNT has vocative as a variant tag. But>this is also the case with the articles and the participles they>substantivize in Rom 2.21-22. I suspect this tagging has to do with>function more than anything else.Yes, Steven, I think you’re right, and that’s a reason why I amuncomfortable with the tagging practice; we’ve already seen that thetagging is wrong with regard to TI in Gal 3:6–I’m not sure what theoccasion of that error in tagging was but it’s curious that other taggershave made the same error. For my part I really don’t like tagging to bebased on functional considerations rather than morphological. In off-listcorrespondence I’ve been discussing comparable problems with the tagging of”middle” and “passive” verb-forms as EITHER M or P in terms ofinterpretation of the function rather than in terms of morphology. While itmay be true that the parsing is useful primarily to those who cannot readGreek very fluently and need to piece the elements of a text togethersyntactically, I personally think we ought to draw a distinction betweenmorphological analysis and syntactic analysis, and it seems to me that thetagging wavers somewhat in practice between those two–and I doubt if thisis simply the case with tagging in Accordance–it seems to be the case withthe Friberg tagging too. I personally would prefer to describe the usage inMk 5:8 TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON as nominative used for vocative–but in FORMnominative, NOT vocative.– 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/

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sun Dec 5 21:25:26 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] introduction On Dec 5, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> Yes, Steven, I think you’re right, and that’s a reason why I am> uncomfortable with the tagging practice; we’ve already seen that the> tagging is wrong with regard to TI in Gal 3:6–I’m not sure what the> occasion of that error in tagging was but it’s curious that other > taggers> have made the same error. For my part I really don’t like tagging to be> based on functional considerations rather than morphological. In > off-list> correspondence I’ve been discussing comparable problems with the > tagging of> “middle” and “passive” verb-forms as EITHER M or P in terms of> interpretation of the function rather than in terms of morphology. > While it> may be true that the parsing is useful primarily to those who cannot > read> Greek very fluently and need to piece the elements of a text together> syntactically, I personally think we ought to draw a distinction > between> morphological analysis and syntactic analysis, and it seems to me that > the> tagging wavers somewhat in practice between those two–and I doubt if > this> is simply the case with tagging in Accordance–it seems to be the case > with> the Friberg tagging too.Yes, I also have noticed quite a bit of the inconsistency you note above.> I personally would prefer to describe the usage in> Mk 5:8 TO PNEUMA TO AKAQARTON as nominative used for vocative–but in > FORM> nominative, NOT vocative.After further review (a little bit of football lingo there) I agree, as I mentioned in my last post to George.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] introduction

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? gfsomsel at juno.com gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Dec 5 23:54:49 EST 2004

 

[] Beginner Struggling with Translating (Thank you,Dr. Mounce) [] Questions about “divine passive” (Rev 13) On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:16:54 -0600 Steven Lo Vullo <themelios at charter.net>writes:> On Dec 5, 2004, at 5:14 AM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> > >> On Dec 1, 2004, at 1:26 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> >>> >>> Functionally this is a vocative though its form is nominative. > It> >> is> >>> not> >>> uncommon for the nominative to be used for the vocative.> >>> >> But George, the neuter nominative and vocative have the same > form,> >> so> >> why consider it nominative when it is clearly a case of address?> > > > Agreed, the form is the same. Consider, however, several facts:> >> > 1. A.T. Robertson notes “but in reality it is not a case at > all.”> > Agreed. This is why I told Scott that the vocative is not > grammatically > related to the rest of the sentence and so should not be considered > to > be in apposition to the implied subject of the sentence. When I said > > above, “it is clearly a case of address,” I did not mean grammatical > > case, but case in the sense of “instance,” i.e., this is an instance > of > direct address.> > > 2. Robertson also cites Farrer who conjectured that there was > > originally> > no difference in form but that the difference was due to rapid> > pronunciation.> > 3. Even in the time of Homer the nominative began to displace the> > vocative.> > 4. In GoMk there are a number of clear vocatives, but these tend > to> > cluster around the words DIDASKALOS / DIDASKALE and KURIOS / > KURIE.> > 5. There are clear instances of the use of the nominative form > rather> > than a vocative to function as a vocative in the GoMk such as Mk > 14.36> > ABBA, hO PATHR and 15.34 hO QEOS MOU, hO QEOS MOU.> >> > I would therefore tend to prefer to call this a nominative form > with a> > vocative function.> > After thinking about this a little more, I think you may be right. > The > problem is that we are dealing with the neuter gender, and so things > > get a little ambiguous. But Carl’s comment about the article reminded > > me of something I had read before about nominatives used in direct > address. Wallace has this to say:> > “The articular use … involves two nuances: address to an inferior > and > simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of > whether > the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which > > use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question > can > be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the > LXX).”> > He uses Mark 5.8 as an example of an articular nominative used in > the > address of an inferior. This would fit in well with the theme of > Jesus’ > authority over unclean spirits. Does this make sense to you?> ============> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI________________It makes sense, but I’m wondering about where he gets the remark about anaddress to an inferior to begin with. I think this bears someinvestigation rather than simple acceptance. Are you aware of anysupport for such a conclusion? I should think simple address would besufficient. I thought Carl’s REmark on the article most interesting (Iguess he’s gotten beyond “Carl’s Mark” — I know, bad pun). While I knewthat there was a tendency to use the article when there was a vocativefunction, I hadn’t given much thought to whether there really is avocative case for the article. This is something else which bearsinvestigation. georgegfsomsel

 

[] Beginner Struggling with Translating (Thank you,Dr. Mounce)[] Questions about “divine passive” (Rev 13)

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Sat Dec 11 21:24:50 EST 2004

 

[] Questions about “divine passive” (Rev 13) [] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:54 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:>> After thinking about this a little more, I think you may be right.>> The>> problem is that we are dealing with the neuter gender, and so things>> >> get a little ambiguous. But Carl’s comment about the article reminded>> >> me of something I had read before about nominatives used in direct>> address. Wallace has this to say:>> >> “The articular use … involves two nuances: address to an inferior>> and>> simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of>> whether>> the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which>> >> use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question>> can>> be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the>> LXX).”>> >> He uses Mark 5.8 as an example of an articular nominative used in>> the>> address of an inferior. This would fit in well with the theme of>> Jesus’>> authority over unclean spirits. Does this make sense to you?> It makes sense, but I’m wondering about where he gets the remark about > an> address to an inferior to begin with. I think this bears some> investigation rather than simple acceptance. Are you aware of any> support for such a conclusion? I should think simple address would be> sufficient. I thought Carl’s REmark on the article most interesting (I> guess he’s gotten beyond “Carl’s Mark” — I know, bad pun). While I > knew> that there was a tendency to use the article when there was a vocative> function, I hadn’t given much thought to whether there really is a> vocative case for the article. This is something else which bears> investigation.George, Wallace doesn’t do much explaining here. He quotes briefly from BDF. Here is the full quote from BDF:”(3) Attic used the nominative (with the article) with simple substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd person (Aristoph., Ra. 521 hO PAIS, AKOLOUQEI). The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say hO QEOS, hO PATHR etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with the article.”So you are right, this bears some investigation rather than hasty acceptance. Perhaps Carl and others who are well familiar with both Attic and the history of the development of the language can add more.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

[] Questions about “divine passive” (Rev 13)[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 12 07:39:45 EST 2004

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom? [] Diagramming of Greek Sentences At 8:24 PM -0600 12/11/04, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:54 PM, gfsomsel at juno.com wrote:> >>> After thinking about this a little more, I think you may be right.>>> The>>> problem is that we are dealing with the neuter gender, and so things>>> >>> get a little ambiguous. But Carl’s comment about the article reminded>>> >>> me of something I had read before about nominatives used in direct>>> address. Wallace has this to say:>>> >>> “The articular use … involves two nuances: address to an inferior>>> and>>> simple substitute for a Semitic noun of address, regardless of>>> whether>>> the addressee is inferior or superior. The key for determining which>>> >>> use is being followed has to do with whether the text in question>>> can>>> be attributed to a Semitic source (such as quotation from the>>> LXX).”>>> >>> He uses Mark 5.8 as an example of an articular nominative used in>>> the>>> address of an inferior. This would fit in well with the theme of>>> Jesus’>>> authority over unclean spirits. Does this make sense to you?> >> It makes sense, but I’m wondering about where he gets the remark about>> an>> address to an inferior to begin with. I think this bears some>> investigation rather than simple acceptance. Are you aware of any>> support for such a conclusion? I should think simple address would be>> sufficient. I thought Carl’s REmark on the article most interesting (I>> guess he’s gotten beyond “Carl’s Mark” — I know, bad pun). While I>> knew>> that there was a tendency to use the article when there was a vocative>> function, I hadn’t given much thought to whether there really is a>> vocative case for the article. This is something else which bears>> investigation.> >George, Wallace doesn’t do much explaining here. He quotes briefly from>BDF. Here is the full quote from BDF:> >“(3) Attic used the nominative (with the article) with simple>substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak,>thereby addressed in the 3rd person (Aristoph., Ra. 521 hO PAIS,>AKOLOUQEI). The NT (in passages translated from a Semitic language) and>the LXX do not conform to these limitations, but can even say hO QEOS,>hO PATHR etc., in which the arthrous Semitic vocative is being>reproduced by the Greek nominative with the article.”> >So you are right, this bears some investigation rather than hasty>acceptance. Perhaps Carl and others who are well familiar with both>Attic and the history of the development of the language can add more.We’re really reaching to the depths (or outer limits?) of arcane lore,aren’t we? My sense, upon reading, Steven’s latest, is that I have a vaguesense of seeing something like a nominative used in direct addresssomewhere in Greek literature–most of that literature being earlier thanHellenistic–, but I surely couldn’t put my finger on it, beyond a vaguenotion of something seen a memorable instance of it somewhere. It did occurto me, however, to check up on what Smyth might have to say on thisquestion; there are a few paragraphs devoted to the vocative, §§1283-1288.Of relevance to our question is §1287, which I’ll cite in toto:”§1287. By the omission of SU or hUMEIS the nominative with the article maystand in apposition to a vocative: W ANDRES hOI PARONTES ‘you, gentlemen,who are present’ P. Pr. 337c, W KURE KAI hOI ALLOI PERSAI ‘Cyrus and therest of you Persians’ X. c. 3.3.20; and in apposition to the pronoun inthe verb: hO PAIS, AKOLOUQEI ‘boy, attend me’ Ar. Ran. 521.”Although the final citation was also cited in the BDF discussion, Smythsays nothing quite so definite as BDF that this expression is only used toaddress inferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rdperson.” If the Aristophanes citation is the sole basis for that assertion,the assertion strikes me as questionable, perhaps even overly speculative.I thought I might just follow that up by checking the rather exhaustive,if older, Kühner-Gerth on this very question. Good that I did so; itdisproves the BDF assertion about address to inferiors, shows that theusage seems primarily poetic–in Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, andEuripides. Upon seeing the three line citation from the Prometheus Bound, Irealize that’s where I’d seen the memorable instance of a nominative forvocative. In his footnote 1 he cites Hermann’s assertion that this usage isonly in exclamations and says that’s often the case, but not in the textshe’s cited in this particular paragraph.§357. Vokativ.”Was die Form des Vokativs anlangt, so sehen wir, dass selbst da, wo dieSprache eine besondere Form fuer ihn ausgepraegt hat, dennoch zuweilen inder Dichtersprache, selten in der Prosa, [p. 48] statt derselben dieNominativform gebraucht wird.1 ) ZEU PATER HELIOS TE, hOS PANT’ EFORAiS G,277.2 ) DOS, FILOS r, 415 selbst ohne Zwang des Metrums. GAMBROS EMOSQUGATHR TE, TIQESQ’ ONOM’ hOTTI KEN EIPW t, 406. FER’ hOPWS ACARIS CARIS,WFILOS, EIPE POU TIS ALKA; Aesch. Pr. 545. W TALAS S. Ph. 339 (dagegen WTALAN 1196). hO KLEINOS hHMIN POSIS, ANAGKAIWS ECEI KTL. Eur. Hel. 1399.Der Nominativ und der Vokativ sind zuweilen mit einander verbunden. W DIOSAIQHR KAI TACUPTEROI PNOAI/ POTAMWN TE PHGAI PONTIWN TE KUMATWN/ ANHRIQMONGELASMA PAMMHTOR TE GH Aesch. Pr. 90 sqq. Ja selbst in unmittelbarerVerbindung. AI GAR DH hOUTOS EIH, FILOS W AIAS sonst AIAN aufgenommen, vgl.Ellendt-Genthe, L. S. p. 13).1 Hermann praef. ad Eur. Andr. p. XIV sqq. behauptet, ueberall, wo derNomin. statt des Vok. steht, sei der Nominativ non alloquentis etcompellantis, sed declarantis et exclamantis. Vgl. dens. ad hymn. in Apoll.14. Allerdings ist der Nom. an vielen Stellen als Ausruf aufzufassen, s. §356, 3, aber in den oben angeführten Stellen ist dieses nicht der Fall.– 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/

 

[] Mk 5:8 voc or nom?[] Diagramming of Greek Sentences