[B-Greek] Phil. 1:13

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun May 16 05:07:57 EDT 2004


> > Maybe our difference in perspective is that
> > traditionally it seems to be
> > understood that a prepositional phrase must always
> > be adverbial, whereas I
> > am saying that it can occasionally be adjectival at
> > the surface level of the
> > grammar. In that case EN CRISTWi belongs to TOU
> > DESMOUS MOU just as EN
> > KURIWi belongs to TON AGAPHTON MOU. However, if we
> > go to the semantic deep
> > structure, there will always be some implicit
> > predicate, usually a form of
> > the verb "to be" and often in a rankshifted relative
> > clause or a participial
> > construction.
>
> Do I understand you here. Are you saying that WITHOUT
> EXCEPTION, EVERY prepositional phrase functions
> ADVERBIALLY at the DEEP LEVEL?
>
> And just to make things simple for me. How about this:
>
> Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ.
>
> The ADJECTIVAL prepositional phrase "of Jesus Christ"
> at the DEEP level is actually ADVERBIAL. At the DEEP
> level, it is something like:
>
> Paul, an apostle, (who is an apostle) of Jesus
> Christ...

It is difficult to answer this briefly without giving a lesson in semantics.
But first, the surface structure relates to grammar and a host of
grammatical terms are used. The deep structure relates to semantics and
another host of semantic terms are used. So, I try not to use grammatical,
surface level terms like "subject", "object", "active", "passive",
"adjectival", "adverbial" etc. in semantics. However, the borderline between
grammar and semantics is not always clear and it depends on the particular
theory of grammar and semantics one is using.
I would encourage you to study semantics and maybe functional grammar.

You may think about the difference between:
(1) "the father who is in heaven"
(2) "the father in heaven"
(3) "the heavenly father"

Grammatically, these are different constructions, but one can argue that
semantically they have the same structure, the unit "father" is linked to
"heaven" by a locational predicate "be somewhere".

I prefer to think of semantics in terms of a chemistry illustration. You can
have semantic inactive units with no valencies. This corresponds to nominals
at the surface level (nouns, pronouns, verbal nouns, nominal phrases). Then
you can have active units that may have 1, 2 or 3 valencies. Such a unit
consists of a nucleus, i.e. a predicate (verbal idea), and 1, 2 or 3 "arms",
i.e. valency forces. These "arms" need to "grasp" inactive units (arguments)
and they have a particular role such as agent, patient, beneficiary,
experiencer, location, etc. An adjective corresponds to a one-valent active
unit. Some languages prefer verbs for adjectives, e.g. "she beautifuls"
rather than "she is beautiful". These "arms" are primary binding forces in
the sense that a 3-valent verb like "give" or "put" must have all three
slots filled to be a full clause. But there are also secondary or additional
binding forces. The primary (obligatory) binding forces are a property of
the nucleus, e.g. "give" has three nuclear binding forces/valencies. The
secondary (optional) binding forces are usually indicated by prepositional
phrases, but may also be shown by affixes on the verb.
An inactive unit may often have an active unit hidden inside of it like the
3 examples above. What I was describing above with the predicate "be
somewhere" is that active unit hidden inside an inactive one.

The genitive at the surface level corresponds to a semantic binding force
that connects two inactive units. One or both of these inactive units may be
complex in the sense that there is an active unit inside it. "APOSTOLOS" is
such a complex unit, because it is derived from APOSTELLW, so "apostle of
Jesus Christ" can be semantically further described as "someone Jesus Christ
chose and sent out for a particular ministry." Many nouns and adjectives are
complex semantic units with an underlying predicate, and you have mentioned
PRWTOTOKOS as another example.
Once you deal with semantics, you realize that you have to stop thinking
primarily in terms of words and start thinking in larger units of thought
and underlying meanings and relationships. All communication and translation
theories depend heavily on semantics, except the very literal
quasi-translation that deals almost exclusively with the surface level and
focuses on "what the text says" word for word rather than "what the text
means".

Well, I am not sure this helps a lot, but I cannot give a proper
introduction to semantics in an e-mail.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list