Constituent Order: Acts 20:28 TOU IDIOU

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Oct 24 01:38:02 EDT 2002


> >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.
>
> I wonder why a construction that that does not carry any particular
> emphasis would be considered "downgraded" because its expected shape
> is changed rather than "upgraded" because it is more marked.  With
> Carl, I would think that DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU makes TOU IDIOU
> more emphatic or prominent or something along those lines.

Philip, since you are wondering, let me explain my point a bit more.
The construction that does not carry any particular emphasis, is the other
one, and I did not say that the construction as a whole was downgraded. I
said "the word IDIOU appears to be downgraded" in NA27. This downgrading is
in terms of relative emphasis and is indicated by relative movement to the
right. Now, you may not agree with this statement, especially if you start
with the assumption that moving a word EITHER to the left or to the right
may create added emphasis, that is, an upgrading. Such an assumption works
reasonably well for English, but not for Greek, simply because English word
order is very fixed, whereas Greek word order is very free. In a quite fixed
order, it is possible to move some words that normally occur in front, to
the back, and vice versa. But in a very free order like Greek where it is
often debatable whether there is a standard or unmarked order at all, it
just does not make sense to me to claim that whether you move it one way or
the other, you create the same effect. This is just too complex, and IMO
adds confusion to any discussion of the function of Greek word order.

Concerning markedness, which is a different concept, the construction with
final IDIOU is marked, since the vast majority of Luke's usages of IDIOS in
an arthrous NP has IDIOS preceding the noun it modifies. That it is marked
basically means that it is unusual or unexpected. I could as well have said
that hAIMATOS is upgraded, relative to IDIOS. Word order in Greek is a
matter of relative prominence. It is like people standing in line. If you
move up before me, you are upgraded while I am downgraded at the same time.
The semantic concept behind IDIOS has a certain prominence by its mere
occurrence, but in this construction, hAIMATOS has a relatively higher
degree of prominence indicated by their relative position.
>
> I am inclined to think that, if this textual reading is correct, it
> would be naturally read as relating to 20:26 KAQAROS EIMI APO TOU
> hAIMATOS PANTWN.  I.e., Paul is not responsible for "the blood of
> all" because he has proclaimed the word through which God formed the
> church obtained through "the blood of his own."  In other words, it
> is contrastive, after a fashion.

Yes, I can see some links between these two statements. Both have the word
"blood" although with different meanings, and both have an inherently
prominent word being relatively downgraded in prominence. PAS normally
precedes what it modifies because it is inherently prominent. However, in
20:25-26 the word is not contrastive, but inclusive. He is not talking about
"ALL of you" as contrasted to "SOME of you", but he is simply talking about
"YOU all". The main point in 20:26 is that Paul is not guilty of their
eternal condemnation (hAIMA), because he has preached to them.

It is not possible to explain in a short e-mail why both left- and
right-movement cannot indicate added emphasis in a language like Greek with
such a free word order, but it is based on the general principle which says
"the more to the left an item occurs, the more prominent it is". This
principle was first formulated in 1878 as far as I know in
Rotherham, Joseph B. 1878. The New Testament Critically Emphasized. London:
Samuel Bagster and Sons.
Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the book so cannot quote directly,
but if any one has the book, the principles should be listed in the
introduction.
Of course, such a general principle needs to be applied judiciously, and
there is still considerable debate on the whole issue. Several people have
done their PhD theses on the subject (e.g. Timothy Friberg), but there is
still room for more research, especially from a discourse analysis, semantic
and pragmatic viewpoint.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list