Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re Lk 10,18 eqewroun

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes: [Responding to Leonard who wrote] An interesting point.
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 2, 2000
      In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      cwconrad@... writes:

      [Responding to Leonard who wrote]
      << >An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only
      if
      >the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
      >example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
      >(GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
      >discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
      >results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.

      << On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
      "Yes, that's so, because ...">>

      Pardon me for insisting here, but my whole point was that in this statement
      of Jesus, there is nothing equivalent to an opening "Yes, that's so,
      [because...]". It still seems odd to me to imagine a GAR simply slipped into
      its normal postpositive position in Lk 10:18 as it stands. I would be
      delighted if you could cite an example (perhaps from classical sources,
      because I doubt one exists in the NT) that would illustrate the validity of
      what you are saying here.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu writes:
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 2, 2000
        In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        cwconrad@... writes:

        << Perhaps Koine is less regular here, but not, I think, much less; when the
        introductory verb is a verb of perception (including OIDA), the indirect
        discourse normally is with a participle rather than with an infinitive.>>


        Thanks Carl for this. I must acknowledge that I had completely forgotten this
        rule. But now that you remind me, I can recall numerous NT instances of this
        syntax.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Carl W. Conrad
        ... I guess that what I was thinking of with the GAR was the rather standard usage of it in stichomythia in classical Attic grammar, where the postpositive GAR
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 3, 2000
          At 8:42 PM -0400 7/2/00, Maluflen@... wrote:
          >In a message dated 7/2/2000 2:46:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          >cwconrad@... writes:
          >
          >[Responding to Leonard who wrote]
          ><< >An interesting point. However, I think a GAR would be expected here only
          >if
          > >the sentence continued a sequence of comments made by a single subject. For
          > >example, if Jesus had replied: "The demons are indeed subject to you; for
          > >(GAR) they were co-spectors when Satan fell...". Without this continuity of
          > >discourse, I believe a GAR is less in order, even with the meaning that
          > >results from reading the verb as 3rd plural.
          >
          ><< On the contrary; GAR is frequently used in a reply to another in the sense,
          > "Yes, that's so, because ...">>
          >
          >Pardon me for insisting here, but my whole point was that in this statement
          >of Jesus, there is nothing equivalent to an opening "Yes, that's so,
          >[because...]". It still seems odd to me to imagine a GAR simply slipped into
          >its normal postpositive position in Lk 10:18 as it stands. I would be
          >delighted if you could cite an example (perhaps from classical sources,
          >because I doubt one exists in the NT) that would illustrate the validity of
          >what you are saying here.

          I guess that what I was thinking of with the GAR was the rather standard
          usage of it in stichomythia in classical Attic grammar, where the
          postpositive GAR indicates a causal relationship between the response and
          the question posed by an interlocutor in the immediately preceding line. I
          don't really think I could put my fingers on an example of what I was
          arguing in the case of EQEWROUN.

          --

          Carl W. Conrad
          Department of Classics, Washington University
          Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
          cwconrad@... OR cwconrad@...
          WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.