Constituent Order: Acts 20:28 TOU IDIOU
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Oct 23 02:58:42 EDT 2002
>
> I know that Iver will probably hold a different view on this, but for my
> part, I don't think there's any significant semantic difference to the two
> arrangementss of the attributive adjective; if there is any, I
> would expect
> that the placement of TOU IDIOU after TOU hAIMATOS would be a bit more
> emphatic.
Well, Carl, you almost invite me to chip in.
I am not sure what you mean by the last statement. If there is a difference,
are you suggesting that IDIOU or hAIMATOS bears the higher emphasis? I
assume you mean that IDIOU then has more emphasis, and if so, you are
correct in expecting me to disagree.
My own understanding is that a word like IDIOS has a certain inherent
lexical emphasis, which comes into play just by the author using the word.
Because of that lexical emphasis the normal or default position is before
the noun. Luke also has a slight preference for placing adjectives before
the noun in an arthrous NP, but for IDIOS it is not a slight preference, but
a very marked preference. Based on this I would not see any particular
emphasis conveyed by the MT: DIA TOU IDIOU AIMATOS.
However, in NA27: DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU
the word IDIOU appears to be downgraded by being moved away from its
expected position and towards the right.
In other words, often the word "own" creates an expectation of a contrast,
as in "his own language" (THi IDIAi DIALEKTWi, Acts 1:19, 2:6, 2:8)
contrasted to someone else's language, or as in THi IDIAi EXOUSIAi, Acts
1:7, or IDIAi DUNAMEI, Acts 3:12, or IDIAi GENEAi, Acts 13:36, or PERI THS
IDIAIS DEISIDAIMONIAS, Acts 25:19. If such a contrast is present, the
natural, expected order is for IDIOS to precede its noun.
There are two places in Acts (none in Luke) where IDIOS follows the noun.
The other instance is Acts 1:25 where Judas is said to have gone EIS TON
TOPON TON IDION. It is not that he owns this place or that it is only for
him in some way. But it is that horrible place where he fits.
Likewise, in DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU it seems to me (and this is where
Carl disagrees, I think) that there is relatively more focus on the blood
that on whose blood it is. To put that into English: Put relatively more
stress on the word "blood" than on "own", when you read "his own blood" and
also do not stress "own" in "to his own place".
All of this assumes, of course, that IDIOU modifies hAIMATOS and not a
following hUIOU which might have dropped out of the text or might be
implied.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list