[B-Greek] Re: Predicate as topic, word order in Aesop

Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Tue Jun 28 07:03:21 EDT 2005


Chet Creider wrote:
<snip>
> Finally, although it is almost certainly a case of independent invention
> (Iver can confirm this), Iver Larsen's idea of a
> gradation of material in NT Greek with the most prominent at the left
> edge and the least prominent at the right edge was
> developed quite fully for Czech (the order, however, is reversed) by the
> late Jan Firbas, who used the term Communicative
> Dynamism (CD).  He developed his notion as a response to what he felt
> was the inadequacy of theme/rheme (topic/comment)
> dichotomies of previous theories.  (So you have some distinguished
> company, Iver!)  I've been very impressed over the
> years with the utility of Iver's notion in the context of concrete
> examples, but it should be noted that there are some
> potential counterexamples (e.g. focus-final clauses) given for NT Greek
> in Steven Levinsohn's _Discourse Features
> of New Testament Greek_ (2nd ed. 2000, Dallas,.Tx: SIL International).

Chet, since you mentioned it, I have re-read section 3.4 and 3.5 in this
book, and I think an alternative analysis is at least as plausible as
"focus-final" in each and every case. As Carl has rightly said, linguistic
analyses are an art, more than a science, or at least one of the inexact
sciences like other social sciences. The same data is often analyzed in
different ways from the standpoint of different theories. Just like
commentators can interpret the same text in quite different ways.

Levinsohn makes the claim that a number of clauses in Koine Greek have focus
in final position. He makes the general claim as an axiom without giving
reasons for why he believes the focus is on the final constituent. Once that
is given as an axiom, he suggests two more principles to formalize the
claim. He posits five placement principles in his section 3 (Titled:
"Constituent order in the comment" - his treatment is based on a
topic-comment theory and on a default VSO order for Koine Greek.) He prefers
to call them principles rather than rules, because there are apparently many
exceptions and "ambiguities" as he calls them.

For those who may be interested, let me briefly comment on his examples:

James 5:17c KAI OUK EBREXEN EPI THS GHS ENIAUTOUS TREIS [KAI MHNAS hEX]
He suggests without giving reasons that the "three years" is more focal than
"on the earth", and that is why it is placed last. But why more focal? The
important point is not how long the draught lasted, but that it indeed did
not rain on the earth after Elijah had prayed for it not to rain. The
placement is explained without problem by the general relative prominence
principle. (I.e. the relatively more prominent constituent is placed towards
the left).

Levinsohn continues:
"Another example in which this principle determines the relative order of
two peripheral constituents is found in Gal. 3:19d. As the next verse
confirms ("Now a mediator is one...") the focus of the clause is the
mediator, not the angels.
DIATAGEIS DI' AGGELWN EN CEIRI MESITOU
(being ordained through angels by (the) hand of a mediator)

Although the next clause takes up the word "mediator", it is a new point
introduced by DE. The fact that "mediator" is developed further in the next
sentence does not IMO make it focal (or topical) in its own sentence. In the
context, Paul is discussing and contrasting the merits and demerits of the
promise of God to Abraham as opposed to the law given by angels. The angels
serve to underscore the divine origin of the law, and are in their own
clause more prominent than the mediator.

His next "potential counter-example" is
Gal 1:14 KAI PROEKOPTON EN TWi IOUDAISMWi hUPER POLLOUS SUNHLIKIWTAS EN TWi
GENEI MOU
(and I was advancing in Judaism more than many contemporaries of my people)
L. says that the supportive constituent  EN TWi IOUDAISMWi precedes the
focal constituent hUPER POLLOUS SUNHLIKIWTAS EN TWi GENEI MOU.
But why should the last constituent be focal? The main idea is the verb
"advancing", but that verb naturally has to be complemented by in what way,
i.e. in Judaism. So, it is natural that this constituent immediately follows
the verb and therefore precedes the last constituent. One could also argue
that there is a contrastive focus between Judaism and Christianity here, so
that "Judaism" needs to be pulled towards the left. I prefer to understand
the context as having focus on his former strong allegiance to Judaism as
opposed to his present strong allegiance to Christ. Paul is not displaying a
competitive spirit with other Jews in Judaism which would make the last
constituent focal (if it was indeed intended to be focal, it should have
been fronted before the verb.)

His next example is
1 Cor 5:5a PARADOUNAI TON TOIOUTON TWi SATANAi
(to hand over such a person to Satan)

L. says that "The more focal constituent TWi SATANAi is placed after the
more supportive one TON TOIOUTON"
But he gives no reason why he thinks that the last constituent is focal. In
this case "Satan" is needed as a complement to handing over, but "such a
person" comes first, because this refers to the main topic of the discourse:
A person who had committed such an extraordinary sin.
There is no contrast between handing him over to Satan and handing him over
to anybody else.
I could also accept an analysis that says there is no particular focus in
this clause, but I don't see "Satan" as focal.

1 Peter 1:4 EIS KLHRONOMIAN AFQARTON KAI AMIANTON KAI AMARANTON TETHRHMENHN
EN OURANOIS / EIS hUMAS
(to (get) an imperishable, undefiled and unfading inheritance, being kept in
(the) heavens for you)
L. says: "The pronominal constituent is placed at the end of the verse to
make it focal (the following verse concerns ‘you’, rather than heaven)"

It is correct that a descriptive, relative clause is appended to the pronoun
hUMAS, but I cannot see why this should make the pronoun focal. The readers
know that they are the ones to get the inheritance. Paul's focus is on the
inheritance itself and its wonderfulness.

Next example from the book is:
2 Cor 13:4 ALLA ZHSOMEN SUN AUTWi EK DUNAMEWS QEOU EIS hUMAS
(but we live with him based on the power of God towards you)
L. says: "At first sight, the presence at the end of 2 Cor. 13:4 of EIS
hUMAS might be considered to be a supportive afterthought. However, Barnett
(1997:603 fn. 60) points out, 'Greek EIS hUMAS is emphatic, coming at the
end of the clause and sounding a note of warning to the Corinthians.' In
other words, this pronominal constituent has been placed at the end of v. 4d
to make it focal (contrast the NRSV translation “but in dealing with you we
will live with him by the power of God,” which treats EIS hUMAS as a point
of departure."
My comment is, that there is no reason to see EIS hUMAS as focal or
emphatic. The previous context talks about death (crucifixion) contrasted
with life as well as weakness contrasted with power. The important point is
not that it is "towards you".

L. has a few more examples, but I have not seen any convincing argument that
any of them demands that a final position is focal.

L. does see some of the problems with his analysis. For instance, he says in
3.8.1:

"Ambiguities when a Verb Ends a Sentence
A clause or sentence can end with a verb and the verb be preceded by another
constituent of the complement as the result of two different ordering
principles:
·	the verb has been placed at the end of the sentence to bring it into focus
(sec. 3.5)
·	the other constituent has been placed before the verb to bring it into
focus (sec. 3.6)."

IMO, a language with very free order cannot function if both principles were
true. How would you ever know whether the verb is moved to the end to bring
it into focus, or the other constituent is moved before the verb to bring it
into focus? You can have a principle of driving on the left or on the right,
but not both at the same time.

Iver Larsen





More information about the B-Greek mailing list