[B-Greek] Acts 18:18

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Thu Dec 28 05:55:12 EST 2006


Thank you for sending an email directly. It is easier to respond.

On 12/28/06, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:
...
> 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.

You will have even more turbulence: we agree that participles are
demoted. However, they are typically, though not obligatorily(!), to
the left of their main verb. As you say below,  I would say that my
left-positioning is more nuaced, including both marked relationals as
well as marked salient items. (and there are Danish linguists very
happy with such subtlties).

...
> 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.

Ballast just meant 'balance', where I point out that PROSMENEIN
already had a rather heavily identified argument, (occurring on both
sides of the participle).

On case-valence theory we appear to be identical. All standard
linguistic theories that I know of distinguish central, included
arguments to a state-of-affairs/proposition, from peripheral,
'satellite', optional arguments. This can be scalar as well, where
some arguments are probable but not obligatory.

However, in specifics with PROSMENEIN we may differ. I am happy to
learn something new everyday and I didn't know that PROSMENEIN
obligatorily included either a person or place to 'stay with'.
So I checked with Josephus, a nice first century writer, with less
chance of skewing the case-valences of Greek vocabulary than, e.g.
LXX, where translation always raises a question. Maybe you've already
discussed these, if so, humor me.

Jos Ant 8.288 EN DE TOUTOIS DUSIN ETESI
STRATEUSAMENOS EPI GABAQWNA POLIN PALAISTINWN OUSAN POLIORKIA
LABEIN AUTHN PROSEMENEN
ἐν δὲ τούτοις τοῖς δυσὶν ἔτεσι στρατευσάμενος ἐπὶ Γαβαθῶνα πόλιν
Παλαιστίνων οὖσαν πολιορκίᾳ λαβεῖν αὐτὴν προσέμενεν
and during those two years, having attacked Gabathon, a Philistine
city, by siege,
he was waiting to take it.

One can say that he was waiting 'there', of course. But one always
waits 'in a place'. Just like people always breathe air unless
otherwise specified. There is an implied time period, too, the two
years. As the main verb, I read 'two years' as being included with
PROSMENEIN.


Jos War 6.286 PROSMENEIN THN APO TOU QEOU BOHQEIAN
προσμένειν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ βοήθειαν
in order to wait around for God's help

this is primarily temporal, a future event, though one could argue
that 'there' is implied. The problem with that is that 'there' will
always be implied.

Jos Vita 62 PROSMEINAI
(they ordered me)  to wait
This highly intransitive use implies 'there', ofcourse, as well as,
'for the time being, for an unspecified time'.

Jos vita 63 EMOU D' AUTOUS PROSMEINAI PARAKALESANTOS
EWS OU TA PRAGMAT KATASTHSWMEN
ἐμοῦ δ᾿ αὐτοὺς προσμεῖναι παρακαλέσαντος ἕως οὗ τὰ πράγματα καταστήσωμεν
and when I encouraged them to remain until we put affairs in order ...
(they agreed).
One might stretch this and say that 'there' is implied and that 'with
Josephus' is implied, but the focus is on a time duration of a
project. Also, 'with Josephus' would only be metaphorical since they
are talking about controlling the Galilee and not about staying
together in the same physical place. 'There' is implied, though, and
refers to the Galilee.

Jos Life 387 PROSMEINATE DH MEXRI TOUS AITIOUS AKRIBWS EKMAQW KAI TOTE ...
προσμείνατε δὴ μέχρι τοὺς αἰτίους ἀκριβῶς ἐκμάθω καὶ τότε ...
so stay until I find out the causes accurately and THEN ... (do what you want)

[[Because of working on internalizing the language, I keep a hardcopy
Josephus concordance by my bed. Good news is that Accordance Josephus
works great while on a computer.]]

Anyway, it would seem that PROSMEINAI/PROSMENEIN may be used both
intransitively and in contexts where time is the primary interest.
Consequently, I still see a probability that 'significant time' is the
reason for mentioning PROSMEINAI and 'brothers' was added when
preparing to mention APOTAKSAI. That does provide a 'balanced'
reading, something not decisive, I agree. And with participles in
general, Luke was not worried about spliting hairs on this.

...
> 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.

We may be relying on different data. I just don't see an obligatory
DOTIKH ('dative' in Latin English).

> 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.)

And I thought that I was the one arguing from semantics and
pragmatics. :-) I can't read anything without all three constantly
active.

> > 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.

So also, some manuscripts, without AUTA. See below.
...
> 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.

Note well, the DEMOTED 'taken out' is on the left. I do NOT take this
EKBAWN to be more prominent than EDWKEN. Of course, this word order is
a bit strange, and we probably agree that the very mentioning of
EKBALWN expresses the readiness of the Samaritan to help. You will
note that there are variant texts that place the DUO DHNARIA with
EKBALWN. I find this last reading more natural, less marked, but
without implying more prominence to any of the items. The
phrase/clause EKBALWN DUO DHNARIA would need to be viewed as a whole
and the word order would be relative within it. I suspect that we
might agree on this. In fact, the other word order above, EKBALWN
EDWKEN DUO DHNARIA, has elevated DUO DHNARIA into the normal
sentence-level, salient object role, and an agreed double-duty.  No
one can say that Greek does not provide for many subtle options.

PS: It snowed in Jerusalem yesterday for the first time in three
years. It's mostly gone this morning, but is a cheerful sight.

ERRWSO
ἔρρωσο
Randall Buth
-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
שלום לכם וברכות
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
randallbuth at gmail.com


More information about the B-Greek mailing list