[B-Greek] SOI in Mark 2:18
A. Philip Brown II
pbrown at GBS.EDU
Mon Feb 9 18:55:57 EST 2004
Hi, Al,
> It cannot be inferred, however, that if X translates Y of another
language, X automatically = Y. Moreover, even if the best way of
rendering X into English is by means of a possessive adjective, X is a
possessive.
You are correct. I was not inferring the grammatical category "pronoun" from
the Hebrew, but rather the possessive function of the form SOI. That it
*has* to be the adjective SOS and cannot be the personal pronoun SU, I am
not, however, convinced.
>Though we commonly refer to the Greek (and Latin) dative of
possession, more substantive grammars like Smyth should be consulted
on "possession" as it relates to the dative vs the genitive.
The distinction Smyth sets up between the dative & does not hold true in
Koine. ('1480. The dative of the possessor denotes that something is at the
disposal of a person or has fallen to his share temporarily. The genitive of
possession lays stress on the person who owns something. The dative answers
the question what is it that he has?, the genitive answers the question who
is it that has something? The uses of the two cases are often parallel, but
not interchangeable.)
Wallace, analyzing BDF's treatment, has this to say:
1) In general, the difference between an indirect object and a possessive
dative has to do with act (as seen in the transitive verb) and resultant
state (as seen in the equative verb). For example, EDWKEN TO BIBLION MOI
("he gave me the book") becomes TO BIBLION ESTI MOI ("the book is mine").
2) In this connection, the distinction in force between a genitive of
possession and a dative of possession can be analyzed: "the genitive is used
when the acquisition is recent or the emphasis is on the possessor . . . and
the dative [is used] when the object possessed is to be stressed."(BDF,
'189). The reason for this distinction seems to be more related to the verb
than the case: the dative of possession is used almost exclusively with the
equative verb, and the object to be possessed is typically the subject of
the verb. Hence, since a state rather than an act is in view, the emphasis
naturally falls on the object, and any notion of recent acquisition is
absent.
Before this becomes much ado about nothing, if it isn't already. On what
basis can it be asserted that the personal pronoun cannot function
adnominally, in view of the examples I've already given?
Philip Brown
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list