Page 1 of 1
Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 3:29 pm
by Sean Kasabuske
Greetings,
A friend of mine has suggested that a distinction in interpretation can be inferred by reference to the accents used with εἰμι vs. εἰμί.
His assertion goes something like this:
1. When the final accent is absent, so that you have εἰμι (e.g. John 8:28), then that means that there is a syntactically required predicate, even if only implied; but
2. When the final accent is present, so that you have εἰμί (e.g. John 8:58), then that means that a predicate is ruled out, syntactically.
Is this true, false, thought-provoking, nutty, something else?
I understand that, even if true, this would only speak to the judgment of the creators of our accented critical texts, but I'm still curious about it, nonetheless.
Re: Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 5:55 pm
by Jason Hare
It's clear that original manuscripts wouldn't have had such accents and that they would have been added later, but I don't know of any such distinction. I'd check non-biblical sources for comparison.
Re: Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 6:40 pm
by MAubrey
Sean Kasabuske wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 3:29 pm
Is this true, false, thought-provoking, nutty, something else?
False.
Copular verbs always have predicates. Necessarily.
The difference in accentuation is motivated on the basis of whether or not εἰμί receives stress on its own or whether it is functioning as an enclitic (i.e. has not stress and attaches to the previous word (not unlike the manner in which "want to" might be pronounced "wanna" in spoken English).
John 8:28: the stress is on the pronoun: *I* am.
John 8:58: the stress is on the verb: I *am*.
Re: Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 7:14 pm
by Jason Hare
MAubrey wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 6:40 pm
John 8:28: the stress is on the pronoun: *I* am.
John 8:58: the stress is on the verb: I *am*.
I'm not sure what semantic difference that would make. Do you read 8:28 (
ἐγώ εἰμι) as placing stress on the subject ("I am he, rather than someone else being he") whereas 8:58 (
ἐγὼ εἰμί) is placing stress on the verb ("I exist and have been in existence since that time long ago")? I would take the previous as just the standard way that the verb is pointed as an enclitic.
Re: Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 8:40 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Jason Hare wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 7:14 pm
MAubrey wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 6:40 pm
John 8:28: the stress is on the pronoun: *I* am.
John 8:58: the stress is on the verb: I *am*.
I'm not sure what semantic difference that would make. Do you read 8:28 (
ἐγώ εἰμι) as placing stress on the subject ("I am he, rather than someone else being he") whereas 8:58 (
ἐγὼ εἰμί) is placing stress on the verb ("I exist and have been in existence since that time long ago")? I would take the previous as just the standard way that the verb is pointed as an enclitic.
If the verb is accented in John 8:58, why isn’t it ἐγὼ εἴμι? Is this treated somewhere?
Re: Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 8:45 pm
by Jason Hare
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 8:40 pm
If the verb is accented in John 8:58, why isn’t it ἐγὼ εἴμι? Is this treated somewhere?
Similar to
οὐκ +
ἐστίν →
οὐκ ἔστιν?
I'm not sure how this instance stands out, but there are also unexpected accentuation instances that I've come across of other enclitic usage, although they don't spring to mind. I wonder if there manuscripts all specifically have
ἐγὼ εἰμί.
Re: Question About Accents: Syntactical Implications of εἰμι verses εἰμί
Posted: July 18th, 2021, 10:01 pm
by Daniel Semler
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 8:40 pm
If the verb is accented in John 8:58, why isn’t it ἐγὼ εἴμι? Is this treated somewhere?
I would try Carson, Greek Accents, A Student's Manual. Ok, looked it up ...
εἰμί is enclitic throughout the indicative with the exception of εἴ according to Carson. On page 139 in his treatment of μι verbs in general he begins by saying "εἰμί is in a class of its own". It's also not recessive in the indicative and accented on the ultima.
In his section on enclitics/proclitics in which he present εἰμί and ἐστίν rules - ἐστίν itself is very tricky - he describes rules for how words preceding an enclitic will accent. The acute ultima will not become a grave.
Carson describes the ἐγώ εἰμι vs ἐγώ εἰμί case in a comment on the rules for retention of the accent by an enclitic - see below.
EPR 6 (Enclitic Proclitic Rule) An enclitic retains its accent when:
EPR.6.1 there is emphasis on the enclitic;
EPR 6.2 the enclitic stands at the head of its clause;
EPR 6.3 it is preceded by οὐ, οὐκ or οὐχ as a separate word.
Thus in 8:58 ἐγώ εἰμί would be correct, according to my reading of Carson because of EPR 1 (acute ultima on word preceding enclitic does not become acute), because εἰμί is emphatic, by rule 6.1 above, and because the final acute is followed by a period. In 8:28 it the enclitic has thrown the accent back onto ἐγώ keeping the ultimate acute but it is apparently not emphatic.
Thx
D