RV: (b-greek) Re:Condition in Acts 17:27

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Sep 19 12:03:55 EDT 2002


Forwarded for George Somsel:

>From: Polycarp66 at aol.com
>
>In a message dated 9/19/2002 8:22:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>parakal at quetzal.net writes:
>
>>Estimados amigos B-Greek
>>
>>Deseo hacer un pequeno aporte a lo ya mencionado y que, en general, estoy de
>>acuerdo . El EI no deberia tomarse como una conjuncion condicional, sino
>>como una conjuncion adversativa. Al escribir esto, estoy leyendo la version
>>de San Jeronimo. vulgate ed 1868. El translitera el EI ARA griego por el SI
>>FORTE latin que no tiene el mismo significado. En latin no existe el modo
>>optativo, alli encontramos otro cambio,el verbo ATTRECTENT esta en
>>subjuntivo y no en optativo como esta en griego. No resulta entonces mas
>>facil dejar de pensar que es una oracion condicional y pensar que es
>>adversativa? Ademas notemos que este versiculo 27 pertenece a un periodo que
>>va del verso 22 al 31 Este es un discurso retorico en que el hablante
>>(Pablo) persuade con juicio apodictico. Asi que el EI con el optativo
>>funciona mas como una clausula final. Tratar entonces de ajustarlo a uno de
>>los tipos de oracion condicional de las gramaticas griegas es dificil, pues
>>la oracion carece de la preposicion AN y su correspondiente verbo en
>>optativo en la apodosis por lo que no debe situarse en la categoria Future
>>Less Vivid
>>Conditional Sentence o en alguna similar como bien senala
>>Policap66 at aol.com en su mail, o el Dr. Conrad. Finalmente quisiera agregar
>>que la forma de explicar los conceptos gramaticales son subjetivos y debe
>>pensarse que no
>>existe el concepto verdadero o falso.
>>atte.
>>Braulio Barillas
>>parakal at quetzal.net
>>Guatemala, C.A.
>>
>
>Dear B-Greek friends,
>
>I wish to make a small contribution (supplement?) to what has been stated
>with which I generally agree.  The EI is not to be understood as a
>conditional conjunction, but as an adversative conjunction.  As I am
>writing this I am reading the Vulgate edition of 1868 by St. Jerome.  He
>translates the Greek EI ARA with the Latin SI FORTE which does not have
>the same significance.  In Latin there is no optative mood so we find
>another change the verb ATTRECTENT is in the subjunctive rather than the
>optative as in Greek.  Is it not easier then to abandon the thought that
>it is a conditional clause and think of it rather as an adversative?  We
>also note that verse 27 belongs to a paragraph which extends from verse 22
>to 31.  It is a rhetorical discourse in which the speaker (Paul) persuades
>by an apodictic judgment.  Similarly the EI with the optative functions
>more as a final clause.  Therefore to attempt to accomodate it to the
>category of a conditional clause of Greek grammar is difficult since the
>clause lacks the preposition AN and the corresponding verb in the optative
>and the apodosis on account of which one cannot classify it under the
>category of a Future Less Vivid conditional sentence or something similar
>as Policap66 at aol.com [sic!] correctly points out in his post or Dr.
>Conrad.  Finally, I wish to add that the categories to explain the
>grammatical concepts are subjective and one should understand that the
>concept 'true or false' does not exist. **
>
>** The last sentence has me somewhat puzzled.  This may not properly
>express his meaning.
>
>gfsomsel





More information about the B-Greek mailing list