Attendant Circumstance Participles

Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Sat Aug 7 15:48:46 EDT 1999


Kevin Smith wrote [snipped]:

>  Shawna Steiner mentioned Wallace's (Greek grammar beyond the basics,
> 1996) criteria for classifying a participle as an attendant
> circumstance participle. Wallace suggests that (a) the pt should be
> aorist, (b) the main verb should be aorist, (c) the mood of the verb
> should be indicative or imperative, (d) the pt should precede the main
> vb, and (e) it should occur in narrative literature. (see p. 642)
> Although my experience of working with the language is limited, these
> criteria seem overly restrictive to me.

    By way of clarification, one needs also to read the paragraph
beginning on p. 641.  Wallace does not say that all five conditions
listed above must be present for a participle to be considered as
attendant circumstance.  Rather, he notes that all five conditions are
present in "90% of attendant circumstance participles."  His point is
that, the fewer of these conditions which are present, the less likely
that one is viewing such a participle.  Wallace's discussion notes that
it is unlikely for such a participle to not have at least "one or two"
of the conditions present, but that anything is possible.  Also, while
the "requirements" as quoted onlist are presented as what should be,
Wallace presents the conditions as descriptions of what usually is.
    I tend to agree with his position on this point.   Given the nature
of attendant circumstance (the logical parameters, rather than
grammatical), I would expect it to be found in narrative most
frequently, and would be surprised to find it joined to a subjunctive or
optative idea.  The use of aorists (or present) in most cases also makes
sense, given the too-specific nature of some of the other tenses.  I am
not sure why the participle usually precedes the main verb . . . most
likely something to do with emphasis?

> Surely Koine speakers (many 2nd language speakers at that) would not
> have been sufficiently grammar sensitive as to restrict their use of
> att. circ. participles to the situations Wallace suggests

    It seems to me that this is a point which could be made against the
grammars of any language: most speakers of English have no formal
training in the language (even if they went to college!), yet they have
no trouble understanding the many subtleties of speakers and writers.
Koine speakers may not have been able to identify attendant
circumstantial participles in their speech; however, that doesn't mean
they would not have followed the standard format of speech being used
within their society.

>  Furthermore, none of the other NT grammars I've consulted impose
> similar restrictions.

    Tracking down what some of the older grammarians think about
attendant circumstance can be difficult.  For example, BDF doesn't seem
to use the term, and discusses participles in a much more general
manner.  Robertson doesn't list conditions a la Wallace; however, if you
take a look at Robertson's examples, you will find that they generally
fall within Wallace's noted parameters.

Daniel
____
Daniel L. Christiansen
Department of Bible
Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street
Portland, OR  97220
(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)
e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19990807/40a23dea/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list