[B-Greek] Matthew 21:5

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 8 12:48:45 EDT 2006


On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> I have the Friberg grammatical tags on my computer file, and they  
> have wrongly tagged ONON in 21:5 as accusative,
> singular feminine. As has already been said the word ONOS is not  
> specified for gender. So, it is an interpretation
> whether the word refers to a masculine or feminine donkey. Since it  
> is clear from the OT quote and Hebrew style that
> this ONON is co-referential with the PWLON, the correct marking of  
> ONON is either "no gender" or masculine gender from
> context. It is a problem with these tags that they do not allow for  
> "no gender". The Friberg tags had exatly the same
> problem with PARQENOS as we discussed earlier for 1 Cor 7:25. They  
> wrongly tagged PARQENWN as feminine, although it
> should be "no gender specified".
>
>>
>> HGAGON THN ONON (again the gender is clear from THN) KAI TON
>> PWLON KAI EPEQHKAN EP' AUTWN TA hIMATIA, KAI
>> EPEKAQISEN EPANW AUTWN.
>
> It is clear from the modifiers that the ONON is verse 2 and 7 is  
> feminine, but the problem is the wrong assumption that
> the ONOS in v. 5 has the same reference as in v. 2 and 7.

My first take on this after looking at the Hebrew was to read ONOS in  
v. 5 as co-referential with the PWLON but after consulting Friberg  
and Gramcord and finding them in agreement against this, I looked at  
the context to see why they had tagged ONOS in v. 5 feminine. After  
Iver's contribution I looked at all the evidence again and I am now  
leaning toward my first take in agreement with Iver.

It is very confusing to use ONOS in same immediate context with  
different referents but ONOS in v. 5 is embedded in a citation which  
makes this more plausible since it follows the meaning of the Hebrew.


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list