Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:Grammars often say or imply that a participle must have a finite main verb, but I see quite a few examples (391 in the GNT) where it's not clear to me that this is the case.
It's good to nail down what exactly is the claim, but I think you're making it more interesting than it is. Usually, the claim is something like every sentence must have a finite main verb (allowing for implied ἐστίν, etc.), and that a participle by itself does not qualify as a main verb. No one is claiming that a participle has to depend on a finite verb--after all, they can depend on any verb--only that, in a sentence with a participle, there is some finite verb (express or implied) somewhere in it. A participle by itself cannot make a complete sentence.
The model you just described is clearer and more explicit than what I see in the grammars I'm reading. Perhaps you can point to places that they state this as clearly as you just did? If we can make this just a little more explicit and test it, that's what I'm looking for.
The descriptions of participles in Smyth, Rijksbaron, etc. refer to "the finite verb" in ways that imply that the relationship between the participle and "the finite verb" is central. I don't see clear statements that a participle can depend on any verb, but I think that's true from what I see in queries. When I read these grammars, I can't tell whether "the main verb", "the leading verb", etc. can be any verb (including participles and infinitives) or not. Is "the main verb" the same thing as "the verb that the participle depends on"? Is "the main verb" the same thing as "the leading verb"? Is it the same thing as "the finite verb"? To me, at least, the grammars I am reading are not sufficiently clear about these things, at least not in the sections I am looking at. I need this level of clarity.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Usually, the claim is something like every sentence must have a finite main verb (allowing for implied ἐστίν, etc.), and that a participle by itself does not qualify as a main verb.
Or perhaps that every independent clause has a finite verb (expressed or implied, you need some model that covers verbless clauses in Greek, etc.), and an independent clause can stand alone as a complete sentence. I'd like to know what "etc." covers in more detail ;->
Stephen Carlson wrote:
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Are you not considering imperative participles in this discussion? (e.g., 1 Peter 2:18)
Well, that and a couple of exceptions to be named later.
Let's see if we can get the exceptions all named ...
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;