[B-Greek] Col1:6,9: AF hHS hHMERAS
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Apr 7 11:12:05 EDT 2007
On Saturday, April 07, 2007, at 02:30AM, "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
>>
>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 6:13 AM, frjsilver at optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>> Comparing JN 27b: AP' EKEINHS THS WRAS to AF hHS hHMERAS, I 'feel'
>>> no difference in syntactic structure. It's not all that strange a
>>> construction, so I don't see the problem.
>>
>> Fr. Silver,
>>
>> On this I agree. I don't seen anything in AF hHS hHMERAS that causes
>> any sort of problem. I would read right over it without even a pause.
>> An alternative to Cooper's treatment could be to read hHS as a
>> determiner, however since AF hHS can stand alone with the same
>> meaning this is a doubtful approach.
>>
>>
>> Elizabeth Kline
>
>It seems to me that the fronted placement of the relative pronoun was well explained by Martin Culy.
>It is helpful to remember that the Greek relative pronoun often has an implicit demonstrative sense.
>
>In Col 1:6 it was AF hHS hHMERAS HKOUSATE - from (that very) day in which you heard
>
>Similar constructions are found in 2 Cor 2:3 AF hWN EDEI ME CAIREIN - from (those same people) who
>should make me happy
>
>and
>
>Heb 5:8 AF hWN EPAQEN - from (those very things) which he suffered
>
>Iver Larsen
Just a couple comments.
(1) I think I would agree with Martin Culy's account of
the construction in Col 1:6 (and I don't think he would have objected to his
message reaching the entire list although we have a rule that an off-list
message should not be posted to the list without the original sender's
express permission);
(2) I think that the usage in 2 Cor 2:3 and Heb 5:8 is different in that there isn't
an explicit noun cited but rather there's a clearly discernible implicit antecedent;
(3) Culy calls this an "internally-headed relative clause" and says that it is rare
among human languages; I don't know enough languages to judge that, but
I have noticed that it's found in Latin -- I've seen it especially in Propertius, where
I suspect that it derives from the more colloquial ('vulgar') Latin usage -- and
I've called attention to that previously -- but not recently -- and I can't find that
reference readily from where I am now;
(4) It is true that the Greek relative pronoun and the definite article hO/hH/TO
derive from old weak demonstrative pronouns and that we occasionally see
hOS EIPEN or the like where the hOS is a surviving form of that old demonstrative,
I don't think I'd call the relative pronoun (or adjective, I guess it is, when used
to qualify a noun) a demonstrative (like Latin qui/quae/quod introducing a new
sentence); rather, I think that hHS in AF' hHS hHMERAS HKOUSATE still is
fundamentally a relative pronoun.
Carl W. Conrad
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list