Dear all,
This is just my guess, since I am only learning.. I do not see any difference in meaning but at most a slight difference in emphasis.. since “anqrwpon kwfon daimonizomenon” seems to mean “[a] man”, “[a] dumb man”, “[a] dumb man who is demon-possessed”, and does not necessarily imply cause and effect but merely two facts describing the man. I believe that “daimonizomenos tuflos kai kwfos” likewise means “[one] who is demon-possessed, [this one also being] blind and dumb”. It seems that the participle is put first in place of the missing noun so that what the adjectives modify is clear. If the word-order were changed to “tuflos kai kwfos daimonizomenos”, may it mean “[a] blind [one] and [a] dumb [one] who is demon-possessed” (assuming the context does not indicate which possibility is correct)?
Regards, David Lim
On 29 March 2011 23:50, wrote:
> > > 29 March 2011 > > Friends: > > I was wondering about a matter of emphasis that may or may not be implied > in the word order of Matthew 9:32: > > Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον > > AUTWN DE EXERCHOMENWN IDOU PROSHNEGKAN AUTWi ANQRWPON KWFON DAIMONIZOMENON > > Does the word order of the adjective κωφὸν (KWFON) before the participle > δαιμονιζόμενον (DAIMONIZOMENON) communicate, as an older commentator like > Alfred Plummer thinks it does, that the man’s muteness is primary, while the > fact that he is demon-possessed is secondary? Or is that pressing the Greek > word order too far? For the sake of discussion, I’d like to note Matthew > 12:22: > > Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός. > > TOTE PROSHNECHQH AUTWi DAIMONIZOMENOS TUFLOS KAI KWFOS. > > In this case, would the placement of the participle before the two > adjectives indicate that the demon-possession of the man contributed to the > person’s blindness and muteness, demon-possession being primary? > > These are specific textual questions. However, my larger question has to do > with whether word order or word placement in a sentence indicates nuances of > meaning. In this context, I thought I’d quote A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey > Davis: > > “It is possible in Greek to express the most delicate shades of an idea by > means of voice, tense, mode, cases, prepositions, particles, conjunctions. > Often an idea in Greek can be expressed in various ways that are > substantially alike, but yet differ in ways that the sensitive Greek mind > understands. So the Greek has liberty where the Latin has bonds. The Greek > may use coordinating clauses or subordinating clauses with conjunctions, or > the infinitive, or the particple. His sentences may be short or long. He may > use prepositions freely or not. Only do not accuse a Greek of using one > construction for another. Freedom is the glory of the Greek language. Each > writer has his own style and flavor” (A New Short Grammar of the Greek > Testament, 10th ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958], pp. 318-319). > Robertson doesn’t specifically mention worder order or word placement here > as a factor in nuanced Greek, but might it be a factor? > > This matter of word order or word placement interests me, but I don’t have > many recent resources dealing with the topic. I’d be interested in the > comments of list members. > > Best wishes, > Jeremy Spencer > — > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list > @lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ >
Jeremy asked
Hi Jeremy,
You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified.
Here’s Euripides’ Alcestis line 9
καὶ τόνδε ἔσῳζον οἶκον ἐς τόδ’ ἡμέρας. KAI TONDE ESWiZON OIKON ES TOD’ hHMERAS.
“And I preserved this house right up until today.”
And here is the comment on the line by Lusching:
“Notice the word order. Apollo puts the verb, as it were, INSIDE the house as if he were saving it by his presence in it.”
The only way to prove or disprove Lusching’s point would be to ask Euripides. I wonder if any Greek author ever talks about his or her choice of word order? Lucian, I think, gives the Greek view on this. When he goes to the Island of the Blessed, he asks Homer why he began his story with the wrath of Achilles. Homer says it just came to him that way, without giving it much thought. (οὕτως ἐπελθεῖν αὐτῳ μηδὲν ἐπιτηδεύσαντι)
Same thing. The only way to prove or disprove this would be to ask Matthew. My guess is he would say this is just the way the words came out.
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? Polonius: By th’ mass and ’tis, like a camel indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale Polonius: Very like a whale
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 8:50:06 AM
29 March 2011
Friends:
I was wondering about a matter of emphasis that may or may not be implied in the word order of Matthew 9:32:
Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον
AUTWN DE EXERCHOMENWN IDOU PROSHNEGKAN AUTWi ANQRWPON KWFON DAIMONIZOMENON
Does the word order of the adjective κωφὸν (KWFON) before the participle δαιμονιζόμενον (DAIMONIZOMENON) communicate, as an older commentator like Alfred Plummer thinks it does, that the man’s muteness is primary, while the fact that he is demon-possessed is secondary? Or is that pressing the Greek word order too far? For the sake of discussion, I’d like to note Matthew 12:22:
Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.
TOTE PROSHNECHQH AUTWi DAIMONIZOMENOS TUFLOS KAI KWFOS.
In this case, would the placement of the participle before the two adjectives indicate that the demon-possession of the man contributed to the person’s blindness and muteness, demon-possession being primary?
These are specific textual questions. However, my larger question has to do with whether word order or word placement in a sentence indicates nuances of meaning. In this context, I thought I’d quote A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis:
“It is possible in Greek to express the most delicate shades of an idea by means of voice, tense, mode, cases, prepositions, particles, conjunctions. Often an idea in Greek can be expressed in various ways that are substantially alike, but yet differ in ways that the sensitive Greek mind understands. So the Greek has liberty where the Latin has bonds. The Greek may use coordinating clauses or subordinating clauses with conjunctions, or the infinitive, or the particple. His sentences may be short or long. He may use prepositions freely or not. Only do not accuse a Greek of using one construction for another. Freedom is the glory of the Greek language. Each writer has his own style and flavor” (A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958], pp. 318-319). Robertson doesn’t specifically mention worder order or word placement here as a factor in nuanced Greek, but might it be a factor?
This matter of word order or word placement interests me, but I don’t have many recent resources dealing with the topic. I’d be interested in the comments of list members.
Best wishes, Jeremy Spencer
Come on, Mark: Lucian is the stand-up comedian, cartoonist, and political- social caricaturist of his era — the era that Hegel describes as coming after the owl of Minerva has flown the coop. Do you really think that Lucian is the spokesman for the Greeks? Well, of course you do. You would. You fall into the same category yourself! 😉
However, I would be rather skeptical of Luschnig comment on word-order here in the Alcestis (KAI TOND’ ESWiZON OIKON) too. This sandwiching of verb between such the elements of the accusative phrase is one of the standard elements, not in prose, to be sure, but in poetry.
Yea, verily, ’tis like Leviathan hisself!
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California
Kevin wrote:
Hi, Kevin,
As a semantic minimalist, I’ve had the same thought, and this seems to me the most likely explanation of why a scribe would make minor changes but not major ones. If meaning were the issue, we would see more meaningful changes. I think euphony also explains the variances in other things, like the tenses, which particles/connectives are used, the absence or presence of the article, PRWTOS versus PRWTON, etc.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 5:30:10 PM
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California
Jeremy asked
Hi Jeremy,
You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified.
Here’s Euripides’ Alcestis line 9
καὶ τόνδε ἔσῳζον οἶκον ἐς τόδ’ ἡμέρας. KAI TONDE ESWiZON OIKON ES TOD’ hHMERAS.
“And I preserved this house right up until today.”
And here is the comment on the line by Lusching:
“Notice the word order. Apollo puts the verb, as it were, INSIDE the house as if he were saving it by his presence in it.”
The only way to prove or disprove Lusching’s point would be to ask Euripides. I wonder if any Greek author ever talks about his or her choice of word order? Lucian, I think, gives the Greek view on this. When he goes to the Island of the Blessed, he asks Homer why he began his story with the wrath of Achilles. Homer says it just came to him that way, without giving it much thought. (οὕτως ἐπελθεῖν αὐτῳ μηδὲν ἐπιτηδεύσαντι)
Same thing. The only way to prove or disprove this would be to ask Matthew. My guess is he would say this is just the way the words came out.
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel? Polonius: By th’ mass and ’tis, like a camel indeed. Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or like a whale Polonius: Very like a whale
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tue, March 29, 2011 8:50:06 AM
29 March 2011
Friends:
I was wondering about a matter of emphasis that may or may not be implied in the word order of Matthew 9:32:
Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν δαιμονιζόμενον
AUTWN DE EXERCHOMENWN IDOU PROSHNEGKAN AUTWi ANQRWPON KWFON DAIMONIZOMENON
Does the word order of the adjective κωφὸν (KWFON) before the participle δαιμονιζόμενον (DAIMONIZOMENON) communicate, as an older commentator like Alfred Plummer thinks it does, that the man’s muteness is primary, while the fact that he is demon-possessed is secondary? Or is that pressing the Greek word order too far? For the sake of discussion, I’d like to note Matthew 12:22:
Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός.
TOTE PROSHNECHQH AUTWi DAIMONIZOMENOS TUFLOS KAI KWFOS.
In this case, would the placement of the participle before the two adjectives indicate that the demon-possession of the man contributed to the person’s blindness and muteness, demon-possession being primary?
These are specific textual questions. However, my larger question has to do with whether word order or word placement in a sentence indicates nuances of meaning. In this context, I thought I’d quote A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis:
“It is possible in Greek to express the most delicate shades of an idea by means of voice, tense, mode, cases, prepositions, particles, conjunctions. Often an idea in Greek can be expressed in various ways that are substantially alike, but yet differ in ways that the sensitive Greek mind understands. So the Greek has liberty where the Latin has bonds. The Greek may use coordinating clauses or subordinating clauses with conjunctions, or the infinitive, or the particple. His sentences may be short or long. He may use prepositions freely or not. Only do not accuse a Greek of using one construction for another. Freedom is the glory of the Greek language. Each writer has his own style and flavor” (A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958], pp. 318-319). Robertson doesn’t specifically mention worder order or word placement here as a factor in nuanced Greek, but might it be a factor?
This matter of word order or word placement interests me, but I don’t have many recent resources dealing with the topic. I’d be interested in the comments of list members.
Best wishes, Jeremy Spencer
Come on, Mark: Lucian is the stand-up comedian, cartoonist, and political- social caricaturist of his era — the era that Hegel describes as coming after the owl of Minerva has flown the coop. Do you really think that Lucian is the spokesman for the Greeks? Well, of course you do. You would. You fall into the same category yourself! 😉
However, I would be rather skeptical of Luschnig comment on word-order here in the Alcestis (KAI TOND’ ESWiZON OIKON) too. This sandwiching of verb between such the elements of the accusative phrase is one of the standard elements, not in prose, to be sure, but in poetry.
Yea, verily, ’tis like Leviathan hisself!
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California
Kevin wrote:
Hi, Kevin,
As a semantic minimalist, I’ve had the same thought, and this seems to me the most likely explanation of why a scribe would make minor changes but not major ones. If meaning were the issue, we would see more meaningful changes. I think euphony also explains the variances in other things, like the tenses, which particles/connectives are used, the absence or presence of the article, PRWTOS versus PRWTON, etc.
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Thu, March 31, 2011 5:30:10 PM
Mark Lightman wrote: You bet, but the nuances are so nuanced that they cannot be demonstrated or falsified. [snip]
I write: Yet Euripides was writing in iambic trimeter. Metrical writing cannot be used as evidence for nuance-laden word ordering without taking into account the meter.
Relatedly, I’ve been thinking lately that alternate word order in exemplars of a given passage may be related not so much to nuance as to euphony, a quality of a writing that was (and is) particularly important to Greeks. Those texts written without euphony in mind may have been altered in various ways in order to adapt them toward such. I wonder whether much of the word order alteration in various NT manuscripts may likely be related to this rather than anything else.
Regards, Kevin Edgecomb Berkeley, California