Participial Salience - Longacre

Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Tue Feb 29 22:08:48 EST 2000


----- Original Message -----
From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" <c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 12:23 AM

<<
Perhaps I should clarify this question a bit. Look at Col. 1:3-4ff.  In
verse 4 AKOUSANTES . . . could be understood as stating a prior
circumstance or condition limiting the finite verb  EUXARISTOUMEN in
verse 3.
>>
I would say that AKOUSANTES provides the *motivational grounds* based on
which Paul and Timothy more moved to give thanks.  This is a logical
relationship that is in focus, and you are of course correct about the
temporal sequence.

<<
It seems to me that the salience of AKOUSANTES is lower than
EUXARISTOUMEN.
>>
Agreed.

<<
 It also seems that AKOUSANTES . . . could have been
placed before EUXARISTOUMEN without having any appreciable effect on its
salience or semantic function.
>>

Here I differ.  If the sentence were: AKOUSANTES THN PISTIN hUMWN
EUXARISTOUMEN TW QEW, then the focus would be on the temporal sequence of
events.  It would form a mini-narrative, as though he is reporting about
Epaphras' arrival, stating 'we heard, we prayed'.  Instead, the focus is on
greeting/establishing rapport with the Colossians, so it is more like: 'we
are thanking God in prayer, and this is what we have heard and are praising
God for...'

<<
 The change of order would have rhetorical
side effects but AKOUSANTES . . . would still have the same semantic
function and I will also risk saying it would have the same salience.
>>

I am suggesting a different semantic function, so I also tend towards a
difference in salience, but that remains to be firmly established.

<<
This is not a great counter example since it isn't part of a Gospel
narrative which is the subject of Longacre's article. Can someone come
up with an example like this from the Gospels or Acts?
>>

Good enough example!

Blessings,
Joe A. Friberg






More information about the B-Greek mailing list