ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modality?

Post Reply
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modality?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

John 4:10 wrote:ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι, Δός μοι πιεῖν, σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν
Transferring this structure to English directly we get, "If you had know ..., you would have ...".

I think the most common (the "normal") way for English to express a past time "subjunctive" - possible in English, but not in Greek - is in a sentence like, "He would have gotten a hair cut before the job interview, but didn't have time." It seems that Greek is forced into a conditional sentence structure to convey that meaning.

Seeing as English is not, John 4:10 could reasonably be translated as, "ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, You would have asked the one speaking with you, and He would have given you living water, but you didn't know who was speaking to you, nor the gift of God.", and so in other similar sentences.

The "If you had ..., you would have ..." calque-construction sounds high-handed in English (like a teacher or parent talking to child to tell them what they should have known, when they know that they don't know, because it was them that withheld the information from the person in the first place to establish/strengthen a power relationship), but was probably the only option in Greek, so sounded neutral.

For comparison sake: Does anyone know whether the ἄν + aorist indicative was used in other places, other than in conditional sentences?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
John 4:10 wrote:ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Εἰ ᾔδεις τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων σοι, Δός μοι πιεῖν, σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν
Transferring this structure to English directly we get, "If you had know ..., you would have ...".

I think the most common (the "normal") way for English to express a past time "subjunctive" - possible in English, but not in Greek - is in a sentence like, "He would have gotten a hair cut before the job interview, but didn't have time." It seems that Greek is forced into a conditional sentence structure to convey that meaning.

Seeing as English is not, John 4:10 could reasonably be translated as, "ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, You would have asked the one speaking with you, and He would have given you living water, but you didn't know who was speaking to you, nor the gift of God.", and so in other similar sentences.

The "If you had ..., you would have ..." calque-construction sounds high-handed in English (like a teacher or parent talking to child to tell them what they should have known, when they know that they don't know, because it was them that withheld the information from the person in the first place to establish/strengthen a power relationship), but was probably the only option in Greek, so sounded neutral.

For comparison sake: Does anyone know whether the ἄν + aorist indicative was used in other places, other than in conditional sentences?
Contrary to fact conditions in Greek go into the indicative, not the subjunctive. Deal with it. :D (Having learned Latin first, I am always shocked by this and feel that it is one of the reasons that the Romans eventually conquered the Greeks).

Stephen, you could answer a lot of these questions if you got a hold of a copy of BDAG:

ⓐ ἄν w. aor. or impf. indic.
α. denoting repeated action in past time, but only under certain given conditions, esp. after relatives (B-D-F §367; Rob. index): aor. (Gen 30:42; Num 9:17; 1 Km 14:47; Ezk 10:11) ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ, ἐσῴζοντο whoever touched him was cured Mk 6:56. Impf. (Ezk 1:20; 1 Macc 13:20; Tob 7:11) ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας wherever he went (as he was accustomed to do—ADebrunner, D. hellenist. Nebensatziterativpräteritum mit ἄν: Glotta 11, 1920, 1–28) into villages Mk 6:56. καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν as anyone was in need Ac 2:45; 4:35. Similarly ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε (v.l. ἀνήγεσθε) 1 Cor 12:2. Cp. also ὅταν 1bγ and δ.
β. in the apodosis of a contrary to fact (unreal) condition w. εἰ (B-D-F §360; but ἄν is not always used [s. the vv.ll. J 18:36]: §360, 1; Mlt. 199ff; PMelcher, De sermone Epicteteo 1905, 75); it is found
א . w. impf. (4 Macc 17:7; Bar 3:13; ParJer 5:20; GrBar 6:6; ApcMos 39) οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἄν if he were a prophet, he would (now) know (but he does not) Lk 7:39. εἰ ἔχετε πίστιν … , ἐλέγετε ἄν if you had faith … , you would say 17:6. εἰ ἐπιστεύετε Μωϋσεῖ, ἐπιστεύετε ἂν ἐμοί J 5:46. εἰ ἐμὲ ᾔδειτε, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἄν ᾔδειτε 8:19; cp. vs. 42; 9:41; 15:19. εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην Gal 1:10; cp. 3:21. εἰ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα 1 Cor 11:31. εἰ ἦν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδʼ ἂν ἦν ἱερεύς if he were on earth, he would not even be a priest Hb 8:4; cp. 4:8; 8:7; 11:15.
ב . w. aor., placing the assumption in the past (Gen 30:27; Wsd 11:25; Jdth 11:2; 4 Macc 2:20; TestJob 7:9 al.; ParJer 5:5; GrBar 8:7; PGiss 47, 17) εἰ ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάμεις, πάλαι ἂν … μετενόησαν if the miracles had been performed, they would long ago have repented Mt 11:21. εἰ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν ἐσταύρωσαν 1 Cor 2:8; cp. Ro 9:29 (Is 1:9). εἰ ἐγνώκειτε, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε if you had recognized, you would not have condemned Mt 12:7. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με, ἐχάρητε ἄν if you loved me, you would have rejoiced J 14:28; cp. 11:21. The plpf. for aor. indic. (PGiss 79 II, 6 εἰ δυνατόν μοι ἦν, οὐκ ἂν ὠκνήκειν; BGU 1141, 27f) εἰ ἦσαν, μεμενήκεισαν ἄν 1J 2:19; cp. J 11:21 v.l.—In κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ ἔπραξα Lk 19:23, ἐλθών functions as an unreal-temporal protasis (B-D-F §360, 2); cp. καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμόν Mt 25:27. Sim. ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι; where ἐπεί functions as protasis, otherwise (i.e. if the sacrifices had really brought about a lasting atonement) would they not have ceased to offer sacrifices? Hb 10:2.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Stephen, you could answer a lot of these questions if you got a hold of a copy of BDAG:
+1. I just want to emphasize this. I consider BDAG essential for anything above first-level NT Greek, and it's probably good to start using even then.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
MAubrey
Posts: 1091
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by MAubrey »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Stephen, you could answer a lot of these questions if you got a hold of a copy of BDAG:
+1. I just want to emphasize this. I consider BDAG essential for anything above first-level NT Greek, and it's probably good to start using even then.
+2.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Stephen, you could answer a lot of these questions if you got a hold of a copy of BDAG
I appreciate your efforts in resonding. BDAG is a reference work about a certain aspect of the language. Grammatical words are included in dictionaries because they are words, and a small summary of their usages is often given, but they are dealt with best in grammatical works.

Even after consulting the grammatical and lexical works, the best one can hope to achieve is a knowledge of the grammar, rather than of the language itself. Reference works are (hopefully) an attempt by someone (or a committee) who are familiar enough with the language to explain the Greek - for analytical, exegetical or pedagogical reasons - in terms of itself and of the readers' native language. They are one-step removed from engagement with the text. In the case of words like this on, there is a real need to engage with many examples of its usage before the way it is used becomes clear.

In this case the standard reference work doesn't really answer whether this modality is limited to one particular structure or whether it can be used without that structure.

This question was prompted by my looking at various translations of this and my feeling that the Greek does not have the tone that comes across in the English. The alternative structure for translation - rather than the calque structure - is how I think the tone of the Greek could be best translated along with the meaning. Of course, I am well capable of literalism in my translations too, but I want to move beyond that to idiomatic rendering.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
George F Somsel
Posts: 172
Joined: May 9th, 2011, 10:11 am

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by George F Somsel »

I would concur with your observation that examples of usage are determinative for a true understanding of usages. It should be noted that this is precisely what you find in BDAG. I would not dismiss the usage of BDAG in the study of words and phrases as you seem to do since THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT BDAG PROVIDES. All you need to do is to pay attention to the (generally) many examples the work provides.

BTW: Thank you for the Einstein attribution in your signature line. I have said something similar for many years without realizing that Einstein may have said the same previously. Some seem to think that the more complicated they can make something the more erudite they will appear. Well, as they say, there is nothing new under the sun.
george
gfsomsel



… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.



- Jan Hus
Bruce McKinnon
Posts: 37
Joined: October 21st, 2013, 3:49 pm

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by Bruce McKinnon »

George F Somsel wrote:I would concur with your observation that examples of usage are determinative for a true understanding of usages. It should be noted that this is precisely what you find in BDAG. I would not dismiss the usage of BDAG in the study of words and phrases as you seem to do since THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT BDAG PROVIDES. All you need to do is to pay attention to the (generally) many examples the work provides.
+1
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: ἄν + aorist indicative - apodosis or general past modali

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Bruce McKinnon wrote:
George F Somsel wrote:I would concur with your observation that examples of usage are determinative for a true understanding of usages. It should be noted that this is precisely what you find in BDAG. I would not dismiss the usage of BDAG in the study of words and phrases as you seem to do since THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT BDAG PROVIDES. All you need to do is to pay attention to the (generally) many examples the work provides.
+1
I'm sorry, if I've given a impression that was as strong as "dismiss". It is more, "use with due caution knowing its limitations".

Using a lexicon as a grammar reference does have its limitations. It is like someone who always uses the clutch and gearbox to slow the vehicle down, rather than the footbrake, or who uses the hand-brake with the release button in to slow down if intending to stop. The vehicle is going to suffer as a result, though in most cases - if done skillfully - the overall effect on the speed of the vehicle is the same. You can drive without using (or having) a working footbrake, and it is a good skill to have if someday that system fails, but for everyday reading, grammar words are best dealt with by consulting a grammar reference works.

Using BDAG as a cateorised concordance - where similar usages are grouped together - as I think George is pointing out, is great; a step up from a simple concordance, I agree.

When I was reading Ancient Greek (second or third year), I started to understand the limitations of using LSJM and (especially) Cunliffe as grammatical reference works. The learning got to a point where the discussion of grammar had to be handled topic by topic, rather than word by word.

A lexicon tries to be all things to everyone, but the information it contains - while still being true and reliable - is of varying degrees of exhaustiveness and strength. Single nouns tend to be given better treatment than idiomatic phrases and collocations. Uses of verbs based on distinctions of voice tend to be (a bit) better discussed than differences of aspect or mood are. Grammatical words that do not need a complex syntactic structure for us to see their function clearly in tend to fare better than those like this usage of ἄν + aorist indicative which I'm suggesting need to be considered in the context of the conditional statements. I'm actually suggesting going beyond the inherent limitation of dealing with things on a word by word basis in this case. Moving in to a syntax level understanding seems to be what is needed. That means using a different type of reference work - perhaps a reference grammar (syntax section).
George F Somsel wrote:BTW: Thank you for the Einstein attribution in your signature line. I have said something similar for many years without realizing that Einstein may have said the same previously. Some seem to think that the more complicated they can make something the more erudite they will appear. Well, as they say, there is nothing new under the sun.
I think this is one of those statements that does not require a brilliant mind to come up with. A lesser mind than yours or Einstein's could have come to the same conclusion just listening to people going on in a manner reminiscent of bovine waste disposal.

I kept the "attributed to", because I take it to be one of those things like pottery, which is a technology that is thought to have sprung up in various places following the taming of fire as the properties of various types of soil was observed after a fire had been built on it. That is to say it is different from something like the chariot which seems to have had a single origin (Hurrian), which was then subsequently copied / borrowed.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”