Romans 8:28 and "in" all things PART 2
waldo slusher
waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 17 17:55:04 EDT 2002
Part 2 of my original question. Thank you Richard for
your comments. They were most helpful and actually
form the basis of this second part question.
OIDAMEN DE hOTI TOIS AGAPWSI TON QEON PANTA SUNERGEI
EIS AGAQON...
Which I asked if this was acceptable:
"we know that he works in all things for..."
Apparently to which Moo would say:
"The one syntactical difficulty is that the verb
SUNERGW normally takes a personal subject..."
My question deals with assigning priorities in making
translational decisions. Is it a good practice to
weigh each piece first and assign it some degree of
tolerance?
For example, suppose that Moo's concern that SUNERGEW
should have a personal agent as subject is valid.
Suppose further that the position of PANTA is awkward
if it is the subject here. By assigning priorities I
mean if only 2 percent of the time SUNERGEW takes a
non personal agent and PANTA is positioned as the
subject as here only 17 percent of the time in its
other occurences, should we then conclude that it is
statistically more likely to have PANTA out of
position than for SUNERGEW to have an impersonal
agent. And by implication, we are then "forced" to
take SUNERGEW with the personal agent "he works..." as
our first priority.
If this is really a b-Translation question, by all
means please respond offlist to me.
=====
Waldo Slusher
Calgary, AL
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list