[B-Greek] Enclitics (Plus maybe a little geography)

Ken Purscell k.j.purscell at tcu.edu
Wed Feb 8 12:28:26 EST 2006


All of which goes to show that it helps to know the quirks of your target 
language ("both" when two and only two items areconnected) as well as the 
one from which you translate.  I just saw a high school speech team t-shirt 
(from a town with a heavily Swedish background) that *tried* to say in 
Swedish something like "We speak fittingly." the problem was that neither 
the verb nor the adverb were in the right form, so a literal translation 
comes out "We to speak (but only one of us) fit," a true irony, given the 
intended message.  Lesson learned: know your languages fittingly!

I think you are right, Carl, about "Judea and Samaria" being united in at 
least the writer's mental map.  But I am just curious if you think there's 
any clue here about *which* IOUDAIA might be in mind: the construct of 
Pilate and the Romans which stops at the border of Galilee, or the broader 
construct desired by Herod Antipas which would include Galilee and all of 
what we know as Eretz Yisroel?

I realize this might draw us away from strictly translation issues (it 
certainly has drawn us off the original enclitics question, hence the 
subject change), but I'm interested if anyone has insight into these mental 
map issues.  If we've gone too far afield, you can email me off the B-Greek 
list.

Blessings from one who has been to "both North and South Dakota and the ends 
of the Upper Midwest."
Ken Purscell

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at ioa.com>
To: "B-Greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Terry and Barbie Thrall" <thrallfamily at localline.com>; "Ken Purscell" 
<k.j.purscell at tcu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Enclitics


> 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