identifying sentences
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Aug 21 14:08:51 EDT 2002
on 8/21/02 10:37 AM, Trevor Peterson wrote:
>> MATT. 26:16 KAI APO TOTE EZHTEI EUKAIRIAN hINA AUTON PARADWi.
>> MATT. 26:17 THi DE PRWTHi TWN AZUMWN PROSHLQON hOI MAQHTAI TWi IHSOU
>> LEGONTES: POU QELEIS hETOIMASWMEN SOI FAGEIN TO PASCA;
>>
>> I would suggest that THi DE PRWTHi falls on a major discourse boundary which
>> is indicated most clearly by the time reference. This would rule out seeing
>> it as a continuation of the "sentence" ending with hINA AUTON PARADWi.
>
> Am I missing something really obvious, or isn't DE inexplicable if we don't
> start a new clause in v. 17? It seems like the presence of the conjunction
> prevents us from taking the beginning of v. 17 as a continuation of the clause
> in v. 16.
>
> Trevor Peterson
> CUA/Semitics
Trevor,
I think DE does in this case mark a new clause, but clauses can be members
of higher level constituents (e.g. a clause or a "sentence"). In this
particular case the temporal orienter THi DE PRWTHi TWN AZUMWN at the
beginning of the new paragraph is a clear indication that there is a break
in the narrative at this point. I never rely on particles alone to identify
a discourse boundary. The semantic boundary is reinforced by the use of
particles but the IMHO the particles alone don't solve the problem.
greetings,
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list