[B-Greek] Caragounis' book

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at sbcglobal.net
Sun Nov 28 15:39:20 EST 2004


>
> On Sunday, November 28, 2004, at 01:41 AM, R Yochanan Bitan Buth wrote:
>
>> Don EGRAPSE
>>
>>> I don't see how "even more so" can be supported on the whole, though
>> perhaps there are exceptions, e.g. as idiomatic expressions. When one 
>> has
>> fewer tools to work with, one can improvise, but it's hard for me to 
>> imagine
>> how improvisations can be superior to the tool designed for the job. I 
>> love
>> crescent wrenches, but I would rather have a wrench made just for the 
>> nut
>> I'm trying to unscrew.>
>>
>>
>>
>> Simple. If we use your metaphors: the Dative case is the crescent 
>> wrench and
>> "prepositions + noun" are your tool designed for the job. Several
>> prepositions are more differentiated and communicative than one Dative 
>> case.
>>
> Ok, now we are quibbling, and I'm not sure the fruit of further 
> argument will be palatable. But just to respond, I see the dative as 
> the tool designed for the job, and the prepositions as crescent 
> wrenches (when they are used to paraphrase the dative). Naturally 
> prepositions have their own proper scope of operation, with their own 
> set of problems, as anyone who has read Robertson's grammar can quickly 
> see.
>>
>>
>> KAI EGRAPSE
>>
>>> Actually, the use of "that" further illustrates the problem of 
>>> ambiguity.
>> Ask anyone what "that" means, and I doubt that a purpose marker would 
>> be the
>> first response (or even second or third). So "that"
>>
>> probably is not clearer,>
>>
>>
>>
>> No one is arguing that 'that' + verb is clearer than 'in order to' or
>> clearer than an infinitive. It simply reflects a structure that shows 
>> how we
>> have NT texts that are potentially moving in the direction of 
>> something that
>> we will see regularized, remorphologized, and grammaticized later in 
>> Modern
>> Greek.
>
> That is a very general comment, for which a response seems unnecessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> KAI EGRAPSE
>>
>>> The connection certainly is fascinating, and illuminating for seeing 
>>> change
>> in the language, such as with hINA to NA.>
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. And morphologically similar to "EIS TON, EIS THN, EIS TO"//"ES 
>> TON,
>> ES THN, ES TO" > into > "STON, STHN, STO", or OMILEIN 'to talk' >> 
>> MILW 'I
>> speak' and MILAW [sic/outws!]. Though these further examples dropped an
>> unaccented initial vowel instead of the accented I'NA.
>>
> Yes, those constructions are certainly fascinating as well. One can 
> perhaps see an informal precedent for them in the many abbreviations 
> found in ancient Greek poetry (utilized to accommodate meter). It is 
> typically a matter of the written language reflecting changes and 
> shortcuts taken in the spoken language.
>
> Don Wilkins
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list