[B-Greek] LSJ quotation
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Nov 2 14:38:59 EST 2005
Dear list,
I am looking at an entry in LSJ where there is a quote I don't
understand. Could someone please help. It is under PROSTATIS at the
end of the entry PROSTATEIA. The document is by Lucianus. It is Bis
Accusatus 29. The words are:
hO DHMOS ARCHN hEAUTOU PROSTATIS APEFHNE KAI EKALESE DHMARCIAN
Right now I understand something like: " The people at first deposed
its patron and called a tribune. But DNMARCIA may be the office of
tribune rather than a tribune. There may be other problems if ARCHN
is not used adverbially, or it APOFWNEW does not mean depose from
office but depose in evidence as LSJ states. I may not be close at
all.
In Perseus I don't get any hits when I search for PROSTATIS,
PROSTATHS, or PROSTATEIA, and I can't locate the document Bis
Accusatus
Thanks for any help.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
> > Hello Folks,
>>
>> Well if Dr. Conrad can yield on this, I certainly can too! Besides, who
>> am I to hold out against the likes of ATR, BDF and Smyth? I have no doubt
>> that there are negatives in the GNT which are unnecessary (i.e., from an
>> English speaker's perspective) and untranslatable. I J 2:22 appears to be
>> a case in point. Still, no one has yet been able to cite a parallel verse
>> from the GNT where the redundant negative is found in a hOTI (or hWS)
>> clause introduced by a verb which is semantically negative, like
>> ARNOUMAI.
>
>Richard,
>
>I think you are quite right that the problem is in English rather than Greek.
>
>The closest parallel in the GNT is probably
>Matthew 26:72 KAI PALIN HRNHSATO META hORKOU hOTI OUK OIDA TON ANQRWPON
>
>This is a direct quote, so there is no problem in English: And again
>he denied with an oath [saying:] I don't know the man.
>
>If we were to change this into an indirect quote in English, it
>would become: He denied with an oath that he knew the man.
>
>The change from direct to indirect requires several transformations
>in English, and one of them is that the negative is dropped
>after "deny". However, in Greek there is not the same difference
>between indirect and direct quotes (both the direct quote here
>and the quote in 1 John 2:22 are introduced by hOTI), and the
>negative is retained.
>
>Notice how the more literal versions like RSV, NIV, NET do not have
>a word for "saying" in Matt 26:72, but more idiomatic ones
>like NCV, TEV and NLT have made the implied word of saying explicit:
>TEV: Again Peter denied it and answered: "I swear that I don't know that man."
>NCV: Again, Peter said he was never with him, saying, "I swear I
>don't know this man Jesus!"
>NLT: Again Peter denied it, this time with an oath. "I don't even
>know the man," he said.
>
>In the case of 1 John 2:22 it is not easy to decide whether the
>quote is best understood as indirect or direct, but it doesn't
>really make any difference to the meaning. If we translate it as
>direct, English needs the negative. If we translate it as
>indirect, the negative is dropped. When the word "deny" has a
>statement as complement (object), then a verb of saying is often
>explicit as in Matt 26:70, but at other times it is implied as in
>Matt 26:72 and 1 John 2:22.
>
>Iver Larsen
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list