[B-Greek] why the hWN would be expected, but not hO in John 1.3?
bertdehaan at gosympatico.ca
bertdehaan at gosympatico.ca
Thu Mar 20 05:55:18 EST 2003
>
> Richard Ghilardi <qodeshlayhvh at juno.com> wrote
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:07:41 -0500
> > Dear b-greekers,
>
> I agree with Barrett (and Conrad) that hWN is to be expected here. In
> fact, that is exactly what we have here! hWN is hO assimilated to the
> case AND NUMBER of OUDE hEN. In other words what we have here is a DOUBLE
> assimilation. First hA is assimilated to the case of the implied
> demonstrative, EKEINWN, yielding hWN, and then hWN is again assimilated
> to the case and number of OUDE hEN, yielding hO.
>
> hA --> hWN --> hO
>
> It therefore follows that the observation that we would expect to find
> hWN (with which I agree) is no obstacle to taking hO GEGONEN with what
> precedes since hWN is just what we have here (in assimilated form).
Is this assimilation the same as what Mounce calls attraction? (pg. 114 Basics of Biblical Greek)
Bert de Haan
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list