DEIGMA in Jude 7: Nominative or Accusative?

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 5 15:53:17 EST 2001


In a message dated 12/5/2001 12:43:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Rleedy at bju.edu writes:


> This a somewhat arcane question of purely grammatical interest. What
> do you think about DEIGMA in Jude 7? The two versions of the GRAMCORD
> data that I have both parse it as accusative, as do the BibleWorks and
> Friberg databases. But it looks nominative to me, a predicate renaming
> the nominative subjects of of PROKEINTAI, which could perhaps be taken
> either passively or intransitively. I don't see any grammatical reason
> to assume that a switch to the accusative case has taken place at this
> point in the sentence.

Its customary to include the transliterated text under discussion.


hWS SODOMA KAI GOMORRA KAI hAI PERI AUTAS POLEIS TON hOMOION TROPON TOUTOIS 
EKPOREUASAI KAI APELQOUSAI OPISW SARKOS hETERAS PROKEINTAI DEIGMA PUROS 
AIWNIOU DIKHN hUPEXOYSAI.

As you have apparently noticed, the Nom. and Acc. are the same form in this 
word.  Therefore, it could potentially be Nom.  There are, however, other 
considerations.  Consider the verb - PROKEINTAI.  This form is unambiguos.  
It is a 3 pl. form.  Although it is not uncommon for a NEUTER PL. subject to 
take a SING. verb, it is not the practice to use a NEUTER SING. subject with 
a PL. verb.

gfsomsel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20011205/49a6e7e8/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list