[B-Greek] 2 Cor 2:1
George F. Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Jun 12 19:03:53 EDT 2004
I don't know what "in sorrow again" would mean. It would need to have at
least a copulative verb. How do you "in re-sorrow"? You can, however
"BE in sorrow again" in which case "again" modifies the copula. I think
you need to decide whether ELQEIN implies "return" all by itself without
the addition of PALIN (which it seems to do in some cases). If it does,
then you would have "return again in sorrow" which might be considered to
imply that a previous visit was also sorrowful.
gfsomsel
_________
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:28:33 +0100 Paul Toseland
<toseland at blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> George,
>
> Thanks for this response.
>
> >"Another
> >painful visit" does not take PALIN with EN LUPHi but with ELQEIN.
> Note
> >that this is an articular infinitive (TO . . . ELQEIN). PALIN thus
> fits
> >within this sequence TO MH PALIN . . . ELQEIN. It is difficult for
> me to
> >conceive of PALIN as being taken with EN LUPHi. What would this
> mean ?
> >
> >
>
> On exegetical grounds I think PALIN must modify ELQEIN. But if it
> did
> modify EN LUPHi, as
> some scholars certanly argue, I guess it would mean 'in sorrow
> again';
> so, 'not to come to you
> in-sorrow-again', which could then be translated, 'not to make
> another
> painful visit'.
>
> >A repeated sorrow ? I would take both PALIN and EN LUPHi and PROS
> hUMAS
> >as being adverbial in nature and all referencing TO ELQEIN.
> >
>
> That is how I would like to construct it.
>
> >Thus it is
> >"another visit" and "a painful visit" and "a visit to you."
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I see that. But would this necessarily imply that the first
> visit
> was painful?
> That would mean that PALIN modifies EN LUPHi as well as ELQEIN,
> wouldn't
> it?
>
> Paul Toseland
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list