Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.
When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.
When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: April 24th, 2012, 2:53 am
- Location: norway
Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
Luke 1:21: καὶ ἦν ὁ λαὸς προσδοκῶν τὸν Ζαχαρίαν, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ.
It seems that ὁ λαὸς, a subject in the singular form, is being referred to by ἐθαύμαζον, a verb in the plural form. And to make it weirder, προσδοκῶν, a singular participle, also refers back to ὁ λαὸς. Does this make more sense to you than it does to me?
I'm still really bad at the Greek stuff, so I've probably overlooked/misinterpreted something. I'll probably figure out what I did wrong right after I click "submit".
In Christ,
Daniel
It seems that ὁ λαὸς, a subject in the singular form, is being referred to by ἐθαύμαζον, a verb in the plural form. And to make it weirder, προσδοκῶν, a singular participle, also refers back to ὁ λαὸς. Does this make more sense to you than it does to me?
I'm still really bad at the Greek stuff, so I've probably overlooked/misinterpreted something. I'll probably figure out what I did wrong right after I click "submit".
In Christ,
Daniel
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
- Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
- Contact:
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
Daniel,
Look at Smyth §950 http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phil ... Monographs. Collective nouns (λαός, ὄχλος, πλῆθος, ἕκαστος τῶν...) most often take the plural verb as if the subject were a number of individuals.
cf. Luke 19.37
Here the grammatical subject is the neuter singular πλῆθος, which should take a singular verb, even if it were a neuter plural, but the sense is οἱ μαθητοῖ.....ἤρξαντο (pl., not ἤρξατο). But the verb of the sentence, ἤρξαντο, and participles χαίροντες...λέγοντες... use the (masculine) plural.
Look at Smyth §950 http://artflx.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phil ... Monographs. Collective nouns (λαός, ὄχλος, πλῆθος, ἕκαστος τῶν...) most often take the plural verb as if the subject were a number of individuals.
cf. Luke 19.37
37 ἐγγίζοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἤδη πρὸς τῇ καταβάσει τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν ἤρξαντο ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν χαίροντες αἰνεῖν τὸν θεὸν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ περὶ πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων, 38 λέγοντες·
εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος,
ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου·
ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη
καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις.
Here the grammatical subject is the neuter singular πλῆθος, which should take a singular verb, even if it were a neuter plural, but the sense is οἱ μαθητοῖ.....ἤρξαντο (pl., not ἤρξατο). But the verb of the sentence, ἤρξαντο, and participles χαίροντες...λέγοντες... use the (masculine) plural.
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
[Luke 1] [21] "and the people was expecting Zechariah, and they were marveling when he delayed in the temple."Daniel Mehta wrote:Luke 1:21: καὶ ἦν ὁ λαὸς προσδοκῶν τὸν Ζαχαρίαν, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ.
It seems that ὁ λαὸς, a subject in the singular form, is being referred to by ἐθαύμαζον, a verb in the plural form. And to make it weirder, προσδοκῶν, a singular participle, also refers back to ὁ λαὸς. Does this make more sense to you than it does to me?
Actually, the singular participle is not functioning as an adjective. "ην προσδοκων" is the periphrastic form for the imperfect "προσεδοκα" / "[he/she/it] was expecting", in which the participle is declined in agreement with the (nominative) singular subject. Also, "εθαυμαζον" / "they were marveling" does not grammatically refer to "ο λαος" because it is a verb in a separate clause having its own implicit subject.
By the way, what does LSJ mean when it says "comp_only"?
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
- Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
- Contact:
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
Read Blass De Brunner: §134 CONSTRUCTIO AD SENSUM (Construction according to the meaning)
There is no problem in Greek using a plural verb for a collective noun. Such use was expected. Including the use of a plural participle agreeing with a singular collective noun.§134. The so called constructio ad sensum without following any fixed rules, was very widespread in Greek from the early times and is found in the NT and in the papyri (Mayser II 3, 25ff., 38f.).
(1) The principle instance is that in which a collective, embracing a plurality of persons in a singular noun, is construed as if it were the plural. Such collectives are masculines like ὄχλος, λαός, , feminines like στρατία, οἰκία, neuters like πλῆθος, σπέρμα (with plural like Herm. Vis 2.2.2). ....
(β) A plural circumstantial participle joined to a singular noun is harsher: Lk 2.13 πλῆθος στρατίου οὐρανίου (=ἀγγέλων), αἰνούντων τὸν θεὸν λεγόντων;
....
(1) (β) A 21.36 τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ, κράζοντες (κρᾶζον DHLP); cf. 3.11, 5.16.
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
Louis beat me to it, but yes, this is a common constructio ad sensum that we see throughout ancient Greek.
Right on the former, but wrong on the latter, David. Who else would be the subject, but the people? λαὸς is a collective or conceptual plural, and when a Greek author wants to emphasize the plural, a plural verb will be used.
Καὶ ἦν ὁ λαὸς προσδοκῶν τὸν Ζαχαρίαν, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν ⸂ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτόν (using SBL text, notice the textual variant)David Lim wrote:
[Luke 1] [21] "and the people was expecting Zechariah, and they were marveling when he delayed in the temple."
Actually, the singular participle is not functioning as an adjective. "ην προσδοκων" is the periphrastic form for the imperfect "προσεδοκα" / "[he/she/it] was expecting", in which the participle is declined in agreement with the (nominative) singular subject. Also, "εθαυμαζον" / "they were marveling" does not grammatically refer to "ο λαος" because it is a verb in a separate clause having its own implicit subject.
Right on the former, but wrong on the latter, David. Who else would be the subject, but the people? λαὸς is a collective or conceptual plural, and when a Greek author wants to emphasize the plural, a plural verb will be used.
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.
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.
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
I would say that both interpretations are possible, but when I first read it I immediately understood it the way I described; the subject is grammatically implicit and does not have to be the subject of the first verb. Of course beyond the literal meaning of the sentence, the subject of the second verb obviously refers to the same people as that of the first, but I think it is separate grammatically.Barry Hofstetter wrote:Καὶ ἦν ὁ λαὸς προσδοκῶν τὸν Ζαχαρίαν, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν ⸂ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτόν (using SBL text, notice the textual variant)David Lim wrote:
[Luke 1] [21] "and the people was expecting Zechariah, and they were marveling when he delayed in the temple."
Actually, the singular participle is not functioning as an adjective. "ην προσδοκων" is the periphrastic form for the imperfect "προσεδοκα" / "[he/she/it] was expecting", in which the participle is declined in agreement with the (nominative) singular subject. Also, "εθαυμαζον" / "they were marveling" does not grammatically refer to "ο λαος" because it is a verb in a separate clause having its own implicit subject.
Right on the former, but wrong on the latter, David. Who else would be the subject, but the people? λαὸς is a collective or conceptual plural, and when a Greek author wants to emphasize the plural, a plural verb will be used.
In other words, I do not think it conveyed the following meaning:
"and ( the people ( ( were expecting Zechariah ) and ( were marveling when he delayed in the temple ) ) )"
Instead it was in two separate verb clauses:
"and ( the people was expecting Zechariah ) and ( they were marveling when he delayed in the temple )"
Naturally, the audience would immediately understand it as follows:
(1) the people as a whole was expecting Zechariah
(2) all of them were marveling when he delayed in the temple
Notice that I make a distinction between the grammatical subjects, which are different, and the focus, which is the same, because I believe the question arose because Daniel expected the two verbs to share the same grammatical subject, but I think that is not true.
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: April 24th, 2012, 2:53 am
- Location: norway
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
Thanks, you (pl) have been very helpful.
It seems to me that even if the verb ἐθαύμαζον (they marveled) grammatically has an implied subject, it still semantically refers back to ὁ λαὸς. So either explanation makes sense to me.
It seems to me that even if the verb ἐθαύμαζον (they marveled) grammatically has an implied subject, it still semantically refers back to ὁ λαὸς. So either explanation makes sense to me.
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
David, if a change in subject were implied between the two clauses, the tendency would be to make that explicit in some way by naming the changed subject. You would have to do that here, since normally ὁ λαός would be understood as the subject. There is no need to think of it separate grammatically. Grammar is as grammar does.David Lim wrote:
I would say that both interpretations are possible, but when I first read it I immediately understood it the way I described; the subject is grammatically implicit and does not have to be the subject of the first verb. Of course beyond the literal meaning of the sentence, the subject of the second verb obviously refers to the same people as that of the first, but I think it is separate grammatically.
In other words, I do not think it conveyed the following meaning:
"and ( the people ( ( were expecting Zechariah ) and ( were marveling when he delayed in the temple ) ) )"
Instead it was in two separate verb clauses:
"and ( the people was expecting Zechariah ) and ( they were marveling when he delayed in the temple )"
Naturally, the audience would immediately understand it as follows:
(1) the people as a whole was expecting Zechariah
(2) all of them were marveling when he delayed in the temple
Notice that I make a distinction between the grammatical subjects, which are different, and the focus, which is the same, because I believe the question arose because Daniel expected the two verbs to share the same grammatical subject, but I think that is not true.
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.
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.
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
I disagree. Since the focus is still the same group of people, there is no reason for the writer to use any additional phrase to specify that group again, however that does not mean that the verbs grammatically share the same subject. I don't have the means to analyse this issue but I believe this structure is most naturally understood as two separate clauses. I am aware of course that collective nouns often go with both singular and plural verbs, but I don't think this is an instance of that. Another instance which must for logical (not grammatical) reasons be understood as separate clauses is in the very same chapter:Barry Hofstetter wrote:David, if a change in subject were implied between the two clauses, the tendency would be to make that explicit in some way by naming the changed subject. You would have to do that here, since normally ὁ λαός would be understood as the subject. There is no need to think of it separate grammatically. Grammar is as grammar does.David Lim wrote:[...]
Notice that I make a distinction between the grammatical subjects, which are different, and the focus, which is the same, because I believe the question arose because Daniel expected the two verbs to share the same grammatical subject, but I think that is not true.
[Luke 1] [64] ανεωχθη δε το στομα αυτου παραχρημα και η γλωσσα αυτου και ελαλει ευλογων τον θεον
The structure must be taken as: "( ανεωχθη το στομα αυτου ) και ( [...] η γλωσσα αυτου ) και ( ελαλει ευλογων τον θεον )", where "[...]" denotes ellipsis of the first verb. Clearly the last verb clause is grammatically separate from the first two though there are no additional words to even imply a changed subject. It is the semantic meaning alone that implies that not only is the subject is grammatically separate, it also refers to Zachariah and not his mouth or tongue. But in Luke 1:21 the semantic meaning implies that though the two verb clauses are separate, both subjects refer to the same people. It is just like English where I can say: "That group just won the contest and they are really very happy."
δαυιδ λιμ
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: Can a pl verb (ἐθαύμαζον) take a sg subject (ὁ λαὸς)?
In your citation above, the change in subject is marked in each instance. That the same verb is to be taken with with both στόμα and γλῶσσα is clear from context, i.e., the use of the article before each nominative. It's the default, so to speak, to understand the verb between both clauses in such contexts. In the third clause, the subject is masculine (στόμα is neuter, γλῶσσα feminine) as the participle εὐλογῶν makes clear. Therefore, your example is not parallel.David Lim wrote:[
I disagree. Since the focus is still the same group of people, there is no reason for the writer to use any additional phrase to specify that group again, however that does not mean that the verbs grammatically share the same subject. I don't have the means to analyse this issue but I believe this structure is most naturally understood as two separate clauses. I am aware of course that collective nouns often go with both singular and plural verbs, but I don't think this is an instance of that. Another instance which must for logical (not grammatical) reasons be understood as separate clauses is in the very same chapter:
[Luke 1] [64] ανεωχθη δε το στομα αυτου παραχρημα και η γλωσσα αυτου και ελαλει ευλογων τον θεον
The structure must be taken as: "( ανεωχθη το στομα αυτου ) και ( [...] η γλωσσα αυτου ) και ( ελαλει ευλογων τον θεον )", where "[...]" denotes ellipsis of the first verb. Clearly the last verb clause is grammatically separate from the first two though there are no additional words to even imply a changed subject. It is the semantic meaning alone that implies that not only is the subject is grammatically separate, it also refers to Zachariah and not his mouth or tongue. But in Luke 1:21 the semantic meaning implies that though the two verb clauses are separate, both subjects refer to the same people. It is just like English where I can say: "That group just won the contest and they are really very happy."
If all you are saying is that there are two different clauses, that's fine, as long as you understand that it's the same subject with both clauses, unless otherwise marked (that's simply the way ellipsis normally works). If there is an implicit change in subject, then who are you talking about? And at the risk of an ad verecundiam fallacy, why would all the grammars, et al., be wrong on this point?
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.
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.