Search found 37 matches
- April 30th, 2019, 3:59 pm
- Forum: Beginners Forum
- Topic: Tenses
- Replies: 14
- Views: 15985
Re: Tenses
Hopefully without wandering too far off topic: I've discovered that Rijksbaron is one of the editors of the very recently published Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek . It's advertised as shedding light from modern linguistics on all aspects of classical Greek grammar, not just verbs. My training ...
- April 30th, 2019, 3:41 pm
- Forum: Beginners Forum
- Topic: Tenses
- Replies: 14
- Views: 15985
Re: Tenses
Jonathan, thank you for the reference to Rijksbaron's book.
I was also intrigued by the book you mention about a French Approach but subsequently realized it was a typo for Runge's Fresh Approach, which already sits in my library!
I was also intrigued by the book you mention about a French Approach but subsequently realized it was a typo for Runge's Fresh Approach, which already sits in my library!
- April 28th, 2019, 1:33 pm
- Forum: Beginners Forum
- Topic: τἄνθρωπος
- Replies: 9
- Views: 10007
Re: τἄνθρωπος
Matthew, are you able to identify for us the Biblical passages to which you are referring?
- August 31st, 2016, 7:52 pm
- Forum: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha
- Topic: Jeremiah 17:11 ἐγκαταλείψουσιν
- Replies: 9
- Views: 3691
Re: Jeremiah 17:11 ἐγκαταλείψουσιν
With regards to the Luke 12:20 verse, would take the "they have demand" as a reference back to πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ in v19. First of all, my apologies for not having responded sooner. Interestingly, what originally prompted my interest in this question was a sermon which proposed that πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ ...
- August 19th, 2016, 3:09 pm
- Forum: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha
- Topic: Jeremiah 17:11 ἐγκαταλείψουσιν
- Replies: 9
- Views: 3691
Re: Jeremiah 17:11 ἐγκαταλείψουσιν
I meant to add that this would work only in the unlikely event that the plural verb related to a neuter plural subject.Bruce McKinnon wrote: There is no obvious subject unless this verb refers back to ἃ οὐκ ἔτεκεν .
- August 19th, 2016, 2:18 pm
- Forum: Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha
- Topic: Jeremiah 17:11 ἐγκαταλείψουσιν
- Replies: 9
- Views: 3691
Jeremiah 17:11 ἐγκαταλείψουσιν
I've been pondering what should be seen as the subject of ἐγκαταλείψουσιν in the LXX of Jeremiah 17:11: ἐφώνησεν πέρδιξ συνήγαγεν ἃ οὐκ ἔτεκεν ποιῶν πλοῦτον αὐτοῦ οὐ μετὰ κρίσεως ἐν ἡμίσει ἡμερῶν αὐτοῦ ἐγκαταλείψουσιν αὐτόν καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων αὐτοῦ ἔσται ἄφρων. There is no obvious subject unless this v...
- March 12th, 2015, 2:55 pm
- Forum: New Testament
- Topic: Luke 12:20: 3rd pl. pres. ind. act. of ἀπαιτέω
- Replies: 39
- Views: 12412
Re: Luke 12:20: 3rd pl. pres. ind. act. of ἀπαιτέω
"Do you know of a particular Hebrew usage similar to this?"
If I've read it correctly, Gesenius, para. 144(g) appears to address your question. (I'm on an iPad so can't copy any of it in to this post.)
If I've read it correctly, Gesenius, para. 144(g) appears to address your question. (I'm on an iPad so can't copy any of it in to this post.)
- March 10th, 2015, 9:19 pm
- Forum: New Testament
- Topic: Luke 12:20: 3rd pl. pres. ind. act. of ἀπαιτέω
- Replies: 39
- Views: 12412
Re: Luke 12:20: 3rd pl. pres. ind. act. of ἀπαιτέω
I agree. Upon rereading my first post I see it had the potential to be somewhat ambiguous.timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:I think Wallace is off, since אֱלֹהִ֑ים normally takes singular verbs in Hebrew.
- March 10th, 2015, 2:59 pm
- Forum: New Testament
- Topic: Luke 12:20: 3rd pl. pres. ind. act. of ἀπαιτέω
- Replies: 39
- Views: 12412
Re: Luke 12:20: 3rd pl. pres. ind. act. of ἀπαιτέω
I haven't done a computer search but Genesis 1:1 is an example of the plural Hebrew word for God being used with a 3rd person singular verb. So yes, I wonder whether the Hebraism explanation is feasible.
- December 20th, 2014, 9:44 pm
- Forum: New Testament
- Topic: John 3,32 ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν - question on tenses
- Replies: 12
- Views: 2780
Re: John 3,32 ὃ ἑώρακεν καὶ ἤκουσεν - question on tenses
I'm wondering about a possibly simplistic explanation. I don't have the means to do a proper analysis of how frequently ἤκουσεν occurs in the perfect. Is it possible that the explanation is simply that the perfect of this verb was a form which, for whatever reason, was not commonly used? I'll now wa...