[B-Greek] Enclitics

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Wed Feb 8 09:53:55 EST 2006


Ken Purcell is right on target in response to the original question.  
The only additional point I think I'd make is that TE may introduce a  
sequence of closely-linked words or phrases that is more than two,  
and if there are indeed more than two words or phrases, "both" is  
inappropriate for translation of the TE. In the present instance  
(Acts 1:8) there's some question of how many words or phrases are  
actually linked. Does the Greek text as cited by Ken,

> KAI ESESQE MOU MARTURES EN TE IEROUSALHM KAI EN PASHi THi IOUDAIAi  
> KAI SAMAREIAi KAI hEWS ESXATOU THS GHS

two phrases (EN TE IEROUSALHM KAI EN PASHi THi IOUDAIAi KAI  
SAMAREIAi) followed by a separate third one (KAI hEWS ESXATOU THS  
GHS) -- I do think we should see Judea and Samaria as a single unit  
governed by PASHi THi-- or as a group of three linked by TE ...  
KAI ... KAI. Is Jesus, according to the author of Acts (presumably  
Luke)  indicating a single phase of "witnessing" to BOTH Jerusalem  
AND all Judea and Samaria followed by a further phase "to the  
boundaries of the world"? or are there rather THREE phases and should  
we understand the linkage TE .. KAI ... KAI that way: (1) Jerusalem,  
(2) Judea and Samaria, (3) the OIKOUMENH. Some would see the  
narrative in Acts organized along this three-phase missionary  
expansion. In that case, we shouldn't use "both" for the TE.

KJV has "...  ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in  
all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

but NET has "... and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in  
all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts22 of the earth."

On Feb 7, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Ken Purscell wrote:

>
>> In researching information regarding a grammar problem, I have  
>> found you
>> may be specialists in the area of enclitics. In reference to my  
>> particular
>> situation, I would request your answer to the following question:
>>
>> What precise part is the word "both" in grammar?
>>
>> We have normally stated it to be an indefinite pronoun. But further
>> studies indicate it to be an enclitic. Would it be proper to say  
>> this is
>> an enclitic particle? Or would it be better to include it with  
>> enclitic
>> pronouns? An example to use for debating this would be the King James
>> Version Bible, Acts chapter 1 and verse 8 which states:
>>
>> "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come  
>> upon you:
>> and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all  
>> Judaea,
>> and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
>>
>> In this verse, what part is the word both? Please grant me your
>> professional opinion on this so that I may understand more clearly  
>> the
>> concept of enclitics with relation to the word both. My sincere
>> appreciation to you and your colleagues for your valued wisdom on  
>> this.
>>
>> Truly,
>>
>> B Thrall
>> United States
>
> In English, and often in Greek, "both" can be a conjunction,  
> especially in a
> sentence such as the one you gave from Acts which uses the  
> "both...and"
> construction.  (The "both" in, for example "both of you" could be  
> called a
> pronoun, but that's a different constructin.) The textbook example in
> B-Greek, of course, is KAI...KAI, but as you've probably already  
> noted, the
> "both" in the translation of Acts 1:8 doesn't translate a KAI, but the
> enclitic particle TE.  Here's the phrase in full:
>
> KAI ESESQE MOU MARTURES EN TE IEROUSALHM KAI EN PASHi THi IOUDAIAi KAI
> SAMAREIAi KAI hEWS ESXATOU THS GHS
>
> The reason most translators put "both" in the sentence is because  
> TE starts
> the process of connecting concepts, in this case the places where the
> disciples are to be witnesses.  It does this, though, not because  
> it is an
> enclitic, but because it is a particle which does this.   A word is  
> called
> an enclitic if it often loses its accent mark, much as EN does in  
> the same
> sentence.  (You'll notice that the first EN has its mark, and  
> that's because
> it's followed by TE, another enclitic!  The second EN, followed by  
> PASHi, is
> its usual bland, unaccented self.)
>
> Particles are hard for English speakers because we don't have them,  
> at least
> not in formal presentations of grammar.  Translators just have to  
> learn to
> recognize them.  I've learned that when I come across TE I should  
> just start
> looking for a KAI or another TE and see what things the writer is  
> trying to
> link together.  Occasionally TE appears alone; "and" or even  
> sometimes just
> ignoring it works well enough.
>
> I hope both that this clears things up and that you hang in there.
> Ken Purscell
> Nebraska
>
> ---
> 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


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list