[B-Greek] Acts 18:18

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Dec 28 04:36:32 EST 2006


> shalom Iver,
> it is nice to find out that we are closer than might have appeard on
> specific readings.

Yes, I think we are closer than you thought, but still have some basic differences in perspectives. 
I don't want to say that you are wrong or I am wrong, only registering that at this point we look at 
the data from somewhat different vantage points.
Let me just add that at the discourse level, we have a right-prominence principle. That is, in an 
episode we often find the "salient" point (climax) at or near the end.  I think something similar 
happens at the paragraph level, but ned to research it more. There is often a time or place setting 
in the beginning of a paragraph, which is not focal nor prominent. At the sentence level, the main 
way of showing prominence is by using finite verbs, so that participles result in a demotion in 
terms of prominence. In my view, the left-prominence principle is most useful at the phrase level, 
because it helps to explain the pragmatics of constituent ordering in a language as free as Greek. I 
still maintain that the principle is useful at the clause level, but it needs to be balanced with 
other principles and considerations. But if a clause is also a sentence, we get turbulence because 
we have opposite waves clashing, left-prominence from the phrase level up the hierarchy, right 
prominence from the discourse level downwards.

>>Finally, does your theory help to decide between the two proposed
> analyses of Acts 18:18? If so, I'd
> be interested to hear the result.
>
> I haven't read all the postings. What influences my reading would be
> ballast and 'case'-valence more than word order or information
> marking.

I would also very much use case-valence, but apparently a more nuanced version than what you are 
using. Ballast doesn't ring a bell.

> Acts 18:18 has prosmeinas with 'sufficient days' as at least one
> argument to the proposition,  the time is probably the salient
> argument because it answers the expectation set up by ETI 'still'. The
> second participle apotaksamenos has a potential complement in
> 'brothers' (its fronting in this reading is non-focal (i.e.
> contextualization). It also potentially fits as a second complement
> with prosmeinas. But that would give prosmeinas two and apotaksamenos
> zero complements. I read 'brothers' as a complement to apotaksamenos.
> Even so, it may also be read as doing double duty with prosmeinas.

First, I do not operate with only one "salient" item. I am not sure if you do. I think it is a 
juggling around of many items of which some may be relatively more "salient" than others. One of my 
basic principles is relativity, and that allows for the flexibility of a living language.
Secondly, in terms of case grammar, I operate with both primary and secondary semantic roles. (I 
don't think you ever read my 1979 MA thesis on that subject -:)). The difference is that primary 
roles are obligatory, unless left out because they have just been mentioned or can easily be 
inferred from context. Secondary roles are optional. The case frame would be complete without them. 
PROSMENW is a verb with two primary roles: subject (experiencer) and dative object (placement role, 
either remain with someone, something or in a place). Temporal adjuncts like ETI and hHMERAS hIKANAS 
are secondary and therefore have a more loose connection to the verb. APOTASSW similarly has two 
primary semantic roles, an agent and a "beneficiary" (the one you take leave of).
This is why TOIS ADELFOIS has to be construed as the primary "placement" role for PROSMENW (required 
by the prefix PROS-). I have demonstrated in the postings that you did not read that this verb 
requires such a placement role from all the usages that I have been able to locate (when - rarely - 
used with an accusative object, the verb has a different sense and these instances are not relevant 
to the use with a dative complement.) The clause would be incomplete without such a dative 
complement. That the clause has some secondary temporal adjuncts does not alter the fact that the 
verb requires two primary semantic roles to be filled. In the case of APOTASSW, the primary role of 
"recipient" is not made explicit, because it has just been mentioned, so it is carried over. This is 
common ellipsis and quite understandable.

You seem to be arguing mainly from syntax, while I argue from semantics and pragmatics (And 
Elisabeth argues from feelings saying that leaving APOTASSW alone would be unfair to the poor 
fellow. But he is not alone, just sharing the "brothers" with his big brother PROSMENW).
(As you can imagine, I don't accept your claim that "brothers" is contextualisation.)

>
> double duty? If so, sort of like Luke 10:35 where
> EKBALWN EDWKEN DUO DHNARIA
> 'taking out he gave two denaria'
> has one object doing double duty as a complement to both verbs.

Yes, there are cases where an object does double duty. Normally, the object would be construed with 
the first verb and then carried over to the next. So, we might have expected here: EKBALWN DUO 
DHNARIA EDWKEN (AUTA) TWi PANDOCEI. (Verbs like give and put are trivalent verbs, so the clause is 
incomplete without the dative recipient, the agent being known from context.) However, here the 
author places relatively more prominence on the giving aspect than the exact amount that was given. 
The focus is on the unexpected giving and caring of this Samaritan, even if it would take more than 
two denarii (see next verse), so the amount is not focal, although relatively more prominent than 
the recipient. All of this can easily be explained by the basic principle of relative prominence.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list