Constituent Order: Acts 20:28 TOU IDIOU

Philip Graber Philip.Graber at alum.emory.edu
Thu Oct 24 11:46:02 EDT 2002


At 8:38 AM +0300 10/24/02, Iver Larsen wrote:
>  > >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.

Sorry.  I wasn't clear.  When I wrote "a construction" I was thinking 
of the construction TOU IDIOU.

>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,

I do not begin with this assumption, nor do I think it works for 
English either.  I am persuaded by Halliday's analysis of English 
that distinguishes between Theme-Rheme (thematic structure) and 
Given-New (information structure), in which case constituents of a 
construction may receive thematic "emphasis" (Halliday does not use 
the term "emphasis") by being moved to the left, or informational 
"emphasis" (e.g., contrastive focus; marked as new information; etc.) 
by being moved to the right.  These are two different things. 
Perhaps something similar is happening with Greek.  I would argue 
that the distinction between thematic structure and information 
structure is valid for Greek, even if it is realized differently in 
Greek.

>  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.

As you can see above, it doesn't make sense to me to make this claim 
either.  Moving one way or the other does not create the same effect. 
But that does not mean that moving it one way doesn't have an effect 
and moving it the other way has another effect.  As far as "free word 
order" is concerned, it does not matter whether Greek has a standard 
or unmarked order in this sense.  What matters is this:

>...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 take it you would agree that "free word order" does not mean that 
word order is arbitrary and makes no difference to function.  I would 
prefer to say that order does not realize grammatical functions in 
Greek in the same way that it does in English.  That only makes it 
"free" relative to English, not absolutely free.  The question is, 
what functions ARE realized by ordering in Greek?

>  > 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.

I think you are allowing your grammatical principle to obscure the 
meaning of the text.  I think that the clear meaning is expressed in 
the different translations of the NIV ("I am innocent of the blood of 
all men") and the NRSV ("I am not responsible for the blood of any of 
you").  It seems that Paul's point is not that he is not guilty of 
particular persons' condemnations, but that he is completely free of 
condemnation by virtue of having completely discharged his duty.  It 
seems that PANTWN is indeed prominent in some sense here.

>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".

Again, no one (as far as I know) is arguing that right-movement and 
left-movement indicate the SAME added emphasis in ANY language.  The 
problem with the general principle you state is to define what KIND 
of prominence is given to left-movement.  Perhaps this principle is 
true for a certain kind of prominence (say, for example, Halliday's 
thematic prominence) and another kind of prominence (say, Halliday's 
informational focus) is given to right-movement.  In any case, it 
seems to me that both PANTWN in Acts 20:26 and TOU IDIOU in 20:28 are 
prominent or focal in some sense, whether that prominence is 
indicated by order or not.

-- 
Philip Graber
Ronceverte, West Virginia USA



More information about the B-Greek mailing list