Attendant Circumstance Participles/Antecedent Action construction

Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sun Aug 8 22:13:34 EDT 1999


Joe Friberg wrote;

>To reiterate Wallace's criteria, they are:
>>(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)

I did not have Wallace at home and did not have a statement of his exact
criteria.

>First, though, the terminology is confusing.  What Wallace calls an
>"attendant circumstance participle" is not the same construction that
>Carlton Winbery [Saturday, August 07, 1999 3:12 PM] calls by the same name
>(Jn 19.17: BASTAZWN is *present*, and he states the particple usually
>follows the main verb).  Nor is the *meaning* the same.

I was going by the terminology alone.

>Greenlee's _A Concise Exegetical Grammar of NT Gk_, where he identifies the
>following two different adverbial constructions/functions of participles
>(pp. 57-58):

I have always thought Greenlee an excellent outline of NT Greek Syntax. In
the summer of 1958) I committed virtually every word of this little book to
memory after having made what I considered a bad Grade in Greek. (The pages
in mine were 66-67 instead of 57-58 but the text is identical).

>"9) Attendant circumstance.  Normally follows the leading verb in word
>order; normally is present tense.  Describes a circumstance as merely
>accompanying the leading verb, with the sense of 'and in addition, this,'
>and semantically in the same mood as the leading verb.... [Note: this is
>Carlton Winbery's usage/example]

I have cited this eg. many times since 1958.
>
>"10) Coordinate circumstance.  Normally precedes the leading verb in word
>order; normally aorist tense.  Describes an action coordinate with, prior
>to, and of the same mood semantically as the leading verb, although often
>not equal in importance with the leading verb.  It gives new information.
>Its action does not qualify the action of the leading verb.  It may be
>translated by the same tense and mood as the leading verb and connected with
>it by 'and'.  It occurs with any mood: e.g.,
>Indicative--Jn. 12:36, APELQWN EKRUBH, he departed and hid himself.
>Subjunctive--Jn. 12:24, EAN MH hO KOKKOS TOU SITOU PESWN EIS THN GHN
>APEOQANHi, unless the grain of whet falls into the ground and dies.
>Imperative--Ac. 16:9, DIABAS EIS MAKEDONIAN BOHQHSON hHMIN, Come over into
>Macedonia and help us.
>Infinitive--Lk. 11:7, OU DUNAMAI ANASTAS DOUNAI SOI, I am not able to arise
>and give to you."
>
>Note that this second category (#10) essentially matches Wallace's criteria,
>but under a different name.  The differences in specifications between
>Wallace and Greenlee is that Greenlee omits (b), counters (c), and omits
>(e).  Daniel L Christiansen [Saturday, August 07, 1999 2:49 PM] pointed out
>that Wallace is speaking by way of statistical inference at this point, not
>of grammatical rule, so these differences between Greenlee and Wallace are
>merely descriptive and not prescriptive in nature.  [Note further, the
>"narrative" criterion (e) is itself contrary to the "imperative" option of
>criterion (c) :( .]
>
>Now, for this little noted and largely overlooked construction (Aorist Ptc
>preceding main verb), called Attendant circumstance by Wallace and
>Coordinate circumstance by Greenlee, I offer an alternative designation:
>*Antecedent (Preparatory) Action*.  In each case, the action of the
>participle precedes the action of the main verb, and is generally prepartory
>to the main action.  It is *not* merely a circumstance, but an integral part
>of the sequence, but temporally and logically antecedent.  Hence, the Ptc
>semantically takes on the same mood and tense as the main verb.  The
>sequence may also be described semantically as step-Goal (ptc->V),
>emphasizing the telic function and logical prominence of the main V.
>
>The Antecedent Action construction contrasts with a Present Ptc (before or
>after the verb) construction that can function as a true, simultaneous,
>circumstance (Greenlee's Attendant circumstance).

I try to help students spot this function in the text by encouraging them
to see it as two actions running on parallel tracks though the relationship
is more.

(Omit)

>To say it differently, my conclusions align with Greenlee's minimal criteria
>(Aorist Ptc preceding main verb) as the necessary and sufficient
>specifications for the Antecedent Action construction.
>
I agree with your terminology for what Wallace calls attendent
circumstances. It is far less confusing.



Dr. Carlton L. Winbery
Foggleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
winbery at andria.lacollege.edu
winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm
Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off





More information about the B-Greek mailing list