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


Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 6/6/2001 10:55:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jlupia2@excite.com writes:
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 7, 2001
      In a message dated 6/6/2001 10:55:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      jlupia2@... writes:

      << Synoptic-L@...

      << Unfortunately, the word HGEMONEUONTOS is always taken not for a noun,
      but is mistaken as a verb in the present participle in the genitive case.
      HGEMONEUMA is the feminine noun and HGEMONEUS is the masculine, and
      HGEMONEUONTOS is the genitive of the noun, not the verb. >>

      [I had written]
      John, I am glad that you finally make this point plainly. It seems that it
      has lain beneath the surface of several previous points. However,
      Liddell-Scott gives HGEMONEWS as the genitive of the noun HGEMONEUS. How do
      you arrive at the idea that the correct genitive for this noun is

      [John Lupia]

      << [...] I did not intend to refer to the noun HGEMONEUS but the adjective
      HGEMONEUWN. So, list discussions are rather useful when one needs to
      organize and clarify one's ideas.

      Praefectus or governor is an adjective- noun always in the genitive coupled
      with a person and/or place. Here, the adjective- noun HGEMONEUONTOS
      clearly points to the action of governing of the office of commander or
      governor of the province paired with a proper name. It appears in Lc 2,2
      and Lc 3,1 (exactly the same inflectional form). However, the adjective-
      noun HGEMONEUONTOS could also signify "place" since it also meant the
      territory, district or province of a praefecture. This is a specialized
      word that always takes the genitive adjectival form since it defines the
      title and political rank appropriate to the person named, or designates the
      district proper to the "topos" or "place" named. Therefore, it is always in
      the genitive as too is the name pair partner "of the province", and/or "the
      person named". Cf Lc 2,2 and Lc 3,1. This can be shown by comparing the
      Greek formula used by Luke in both cases to those found in Latin for the
      praefecti. All Latin titles for prefects are in the genitive. The Greek
      translation used by Luke was too. Consequently, it must be an
      adjectival-noun pairing.>>

      I don't understand this yet. Perhaps you could supply one or two actual Latin
      phrases, in their original context, that would illustrate what you are
      talking about here (that all Latin titles for prefects are in the genitive)?

      << Most analyses of Lc 2, 2 interpret this passage as a genitive absolute. >>
      For example, Cf. Max Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek NT (Rome,
      1996) 176 describes Lc 2,2 as gen. absolute; 181 Lc 3,1 as gen. absolute.>>

      I don't see yet why this doesn't work well here (but see below).

      << However, according to MacDonald the genitive absolute is constructed:

      gen. noun + gen. participle + adverb

      The object of the participle is in the accusative.>>

      I wonder where he gets this rule, and is it ironclad?

      << Following MacDonald's explanation Quirinius should be in the accusative
      case, but he is in the genitive.>>

      Why on earth should Quirinius be in the accusative? He is the subject, not
      the object of the verb hHGEMONEUO, in the hypothesis that the phrase is a
      gen. absolute. And the genitive case for the subject of the verbal adjective
      is exactly what one would expect in a gen. absolute. Oh, hold on. You must
      have meant that TES SURIAS should be in the accusative [THN SURIAN]? OK, this
      I could see: since this word seems to be the object of the verb hHGEMONEUO,
      in the hypothesis of a genitive absolute here, it should be in the
      accusative, but is not. And the fact that it is genitive instead could make
      the nuance of HGEMONEUONTOS more that of a (verbal) noun (governing another
      noun in gen. case) than that of verb. Is this what you are talking about? Now
      maybe we're getting somewhere. But I still think the phrase as a whole has to
      be understood as genitive absolute, in this case with the participle of the
      verb "to be" (ONTOS) understood. There does seem to be quite sophisticated
      syntactical subtlety here, in any case, and my last suggestion seems very
      grating to me, now that I think of it (what I mean is that ONTOS
      HGEMONEUONTOS THS SURIAS KURHNIOU just sounds pretty barbaric to me).

      I don't mean to ignore the rest of your post, which I haven't had time to
      fully analyze yet, and which perhaps throws further light on the question,
      but let me just cite here from the syntactical analysis of Gianfranco Nolli
      on the genitive TES SURIAS, and perhaps you could comment on his comment. He

      SURIAS: nome sostantivo proprio di luoghi; genitivo sing femminile, voluto
      dal verbo di commando... I take it you don't agree with the last part of this
      analysis? Are there in fact verbs of command in Greek that normally take a
      genitive? I'm not sure.

      Leonard Maluf

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.