Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3744
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Jonathan Robie » May 4th, 2015, 1:49 pm

Is implicit periphrasis an established concept in Hellenistic Greek? I hadn't bumped into it before this thread. Are there clear examples where this must be the interpretation?
0 x


ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

RandallButh
Posts: 1056
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by RandallButh » May 4th, 2015, 1:53 pm

Yes, you got that right. All background.
0 x

Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Thomas Dolhanty » May 4th, 2015, 2:52 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:Is implicit periphrasis an established concept in Hellenistic Greek? I hadn't bumped into it before this thread. Are there clear examples where this must be the interpretation?
Unless someone has a ready answer, I will see what I can find - but it will be days. Also, "must be the interpretation", might be difficult with "implicit". But I will see what I can find.
0 x
γράφω μαθεῖν

Andrew Chapman
Posts: 260
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Andrew Chapman » May 7th, 2015, 7:06 am

36 Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ· αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς, ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς 37 καὶ αὐτὴ χήρα ἕως ἐτῶν ὀγδοήκοντα τεσσάρων, ἣ οὐκ ἀφίστατο τοῦ ἱεροῦ νηστείαις καὶ δεήσεσιν λατρεύουσα νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν[.] 38 καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ.

Meyer says there should be no full stop at the end of verse 37, and αὕτη is the subject of ἀνθωμολογεῖτο:
After αὕτη, Luk 2:36, the copula ἦν is not unnecessarily to be supplied, in which case (so usually, as also by Lachmann and Tischendorf) a point is placed after Luk 2:37; but this αὕτη is the subject to which ἀνθωμολογεῖτο belongs as verb, so that all that intervenes contains accompanying definitions of the subject, namely thus: This one, being advanced in great age, after she had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity, she too a widow up to eighty-four years, who departed not from the temple, with fastings and prayers rendering service to God night and day and having come forward at that same hour, offered praise to the Lord, etc. Observe as to this—(1) that ζήσασα … αὐτῆς, Luk 2:36, is subordinate to the προβεβηκ. ἐν ἡμ. πολλ.; (2) that at Luk 2:37 there is to be written, with Tischendorf and Ewald, καὶ αὐτή (not as usually, καὶ αὕτη), so that the definition καὶ αὐτὴ χήρα … ἐπιστᾶσα, Luk 2:37-38, contains a further description of the woman co-ordinated with the προβεβηκ. ἐν ἡμ. πολλ.; (3) that καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα (see the critical remarks) without any separation links itself on continuously to the preceding participial definition; finally, (4) that καὶ αὐτή, Luk 2:37, she too, places Anna on a parallel with Simeon; as the latter had come forward a pious aged man, so she also a pious aged woman.
Against this, Plummer, ICC:
the clumsy arrangement of taking all three verses (36–38) as one sentence, and making αὕτη the nom. to ἀνθωμολογεῖτο, should be avoided.
Andrew
0 x

Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: Must a participle have a finite main verb?

Post by Thomas Dolhanty » May 7th, 2015, 6:52 pm

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:Is implicit periphrasis an established concept in Hellenistic Greek? I hadn't bumped into it before this thread. Are there clear examples where this must be the interpretation?
Unless someone has a ready answer, I will see what I can find - but it will be days. Also, "must be the interpretation", might be difficult with "implicit". But I will see what I can find.
The short answer is NO! There are NO "clear examples where this must be the interpretation". The reason is, the narrower view of discourse analysis will always say that the author has signalled his intention by what he wrote. If he wanted to say that, then he would have said it explicitly by inserting the verb. This seems too narrow to me, and too prescriptive. It doesn't seem to me to recognize the latitude that a writer or speaker has to express his or her choices. Nevertheless, there it is.

Below is a list of “implied” periphrastic imperfects taken from a self-published list assembled by *James Boyer (see below) and reported in:

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE PERIPHRASTIC IMPERFECT
IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
WRITINGS OF LUKE
by
CARL E. JOHNSON
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
May 2010

Found at : http://lib.scu.ac.kr/WebImg/data/pdf/3408929.pdf


MT 3:17 (ἦν) 3s λέγουσα saying (f)
MK 12:5 (ἦσαν) 3p δέροντες
MK 12:5 (ἦσαν)3p ἀποκτεννοντες
LK 5:18 (ἦν) 3s φέροντες bearing (m)
ROM 7:13 (ἦν) 3s κατεργαζομένη producing (m)
2CO 7:5 (ἦμεν)1p θλιβόμενοι being afflicted (m)
1THS 2:12 (ἦμεν) 1p παρακαλοῦντες exhorting (m)
1THS 2:12 (ἦμεν) 1p παραμυθούμενοι comforting (m)
1THS 2:12 (ἦμεν) 1p μαρτυρόμενοι testifying (m)
1PT 2:25 ἦτε 2p κλανώμενοι going astray (m)
RV 1:16 (ἦν) 3s ἔχων having (m)
RV 1:16 (ἦν) 3s ἐκπορευομένη going out (f)
RV 4:5 (ἦσαν) 3p καιόμεναι burning (f)
RV 4:7 (ἦσαν)3p ἔχων having (m)
RV 5:12 (ἦσαν) 3p λέγοντες saying (m)
RV 6:5 (ἦσαν)3p ἔχων having (m)
RV 10:2 (ἦν) 3s ἔχων having (m)
RV 14:7 (ἦν) 3s λέγων saying (m)
RV 17:4 (ἦν) 3s ἔχουσα having (f)
RV 19:11 (ἦν) 3s καλούμενοσ calling (m)
RV 19:12 (ἦν) 3s ἔχων having (m)
RV 21:12 (ἦν) 3s ἔχουσα having (f)
RV 21:12 (ἦν) 3s ἔχουσα having (f)
RV 21:14 (ἦν) 3s ἔχων having (m)

This list deals only with imperfects, and is extracted from Boyer's larger list of all imperfect periphrastic constructions. In his thesis, Johnson eliminates all of these possibilities because, writes he:
CARL E. JOHNSON wrote:Since a morphological form of the imperfect is available which allows the writer to disambiguate tokens that might otherwise be taken as merely imperfects of the copula with an adjectival participle, any such ambiguous tokens should be taken as adjectival until some logically compelling reason can be provided for doing otherwise.

This approach should also allow for the exclusion of any tokens which are only implied as well as those included by one author but excluded by another:
Keep in mind that this same reasoning would apply to an implied form of εἰμί to create a predicate adjective in the verse we were discussing. Unless the structure demands it (meaning no option) then the participle should be regarded as an adjective, as I understand it.

* BOYER, JAMES L. 1984. The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study. Grace Theological
Journal, 5.2.163-79.
—. 1986. Supplemental Manual of Information: PARTICIPLES. 137
0 x
γράφω μαθεῖν

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”