Page 1 of 1

Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 4th, 2013, 4:10 pm
by John Brainard
ὃ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς

The first neuter relative pronoun is marked as being in the Nominative case.

Those that follow are in the accusative case.

Here is my question and it is based upon the fact that they are all identical.

Are the accusatives determined by context or am I missing something? :D

John

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 4th, 2013, 5:34 pm
by timothy_p_mcmahon
Determined by context.

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 4th, 2013, 5:41 pm
by John Brainard
Thank you.

John

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 4th, 2013, 5:44 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Context helps of course, but here the syntax is a pretty clear guide:

The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.

The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 4th, 2013, 5:51 pm
by John Brainard
Stephenson Carlson
Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject
Good stuff. This is very helpful

John

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 5th, 2013, 1:55 am
by David Lim
Stephen Carlson wrote:Context helps of course, but here the syntax is a pretty clear guide:

The first verb ἦν is intransitive; it does not take an accusative object, so ὅ must be nominative.

The second verb ἀκηκόαμεν is transitive, but its subject must be first-person masculine plural. Since ὅ is neuter singular, it cannot be the subject and so is the expected direct object in the accusative. Ditto for ἑωράκαμεν and ἐθεασάμεθα.
Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 5th, 2013, 2:12 am
by Stephen Carlson
David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 5th, 2013, 2:24 am
by David Lim
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 5th, 2013, 9:48 am
by John Brainard
David Lim
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.
I can see how this could happen. Was helpful.

John

Re: Accusative case 1 John 1:1

Posted: February 5th, 2013, 11:15 am
by Stephen Carlson
David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Also, the article cannot be the subject of a verb except in the "rare" case that it functions as a personal pronoun (remnant of earlier Greek) such as in "ο δε ειπεν ..."
Well, yeah, but we're talking about the neuter singular relative pronoun (ὅς, ἥ,) ὅ, not the masculine singular article.
Yup, they would be nicely differentiated in a modern printed edition, but I'm assuming that the original writers didn't write accents. Anyway sorry if my comment was off-topic.
They may not have written accents, but they are still relative pronouns just the same. The syntax does not support their being articles (e.g. no following particle like μέν or δέ).