More parsing
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sat Apr 20 17:29:36 EDT 2002
on 4/20/02 11:30 AM, c stirling bartholomew wrote:
> From a functional perspective one could say that the constituent TO APO TOU
> KAINOU in LUKE 5:36, limits TO EPIBLHMA. So I would parse it the same way
> you would an arthrous adjective or noun in the same slot.
Daniel,
Another thought is that one might compare TO APO TOU KAINOU in LUKE 5:36 to
a relative clause with EIMI construction like:
LUKE 5:29 hOI HSAN MET' AUTWN
LUKE 5:29 KAI EPOIHSEN DOCHN MEGALHN LEUIS AUTWi EN THi OIKIAi AUTOU, KAI HN
OCLOS POLUS TELWNWN KAI ALLWN hOI HSAN MET' AUTWN KATAKEIMENOI.
JOHN 10:16 hA . . . ESTIN EK THS AULHS TAUTHS
JOHN 10:16 KAI ALLA PROBATA ECW hA OUK ESTIN EK THS AULHS TAUTHS: KAKEINA
DEI ME AGAGEIN KAI THS FWNHS MOU AKOUSOUSIN, KAI GENHSONTAI MIA POIMNH, hEIS
POIMHN.
I am not sure if this is a fair comparison. However if you are trying to
reduce the article -> prep (adjective, substantive, pronoun) construction to
a kernel proposition, then you might consider it as having an understood
EISTIN. This, IMHO, is not the best way to proceed but it will allow one to
identify the leaves of the tree according to well understood rules.
Thanks for the thought provoking question,
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list