[B-Greek] The emphasis of the first attributive position
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 16:41:34 EDT 2007
Iver,
Thank you for your comments; see responses below.
BA: The grammars seem to agree that that the first attributive position
>> (article-adjective-noun) places greater emphasis on the adjective than on
>> the substantive (so e.g., Robertson, 776; Wallace, 306; Smyth, section
>> 1157; BDF, section 270).
>
Iver: Although I haven't studied all the references you give, the statement
> is an oversimplification, at least for NT Greek. I only have BDF and they
> fail to take into account the style of different authors. According to my
> own little research over the years, if there is no article, then the order
> adjective-noun may indicate greater relative emphasis on the adjective
> than the noun as compared to the order noun-adjective. But it depends on
> the author and also how many other modifiers are part of the noun phrase.
> If there is an article, Matthew almost always uses the order
> article-adjective-noun and Peter always does. Mark and John (including
> Rev.) almost always use the order article-noun-article-adjective. Luke is
> fifty-fifty. This means that the above statement does not apply to Matthew
> and Peter and not necessarily to Luke. It is possible that there is Hebrew
> interference for these authors, but I don't know. It is a topic that would
> need a lot of empirical research both inside and outside of the GNT. I
> don't know if anyone has done such thorough research.
BA: So you would say that the principle is not even necessarily correct? I
assume the grammars are speaking generally. But the heart of the question I
have posed really comes down to what the grammars mean when they say this.
Even if you believe that the construction sometimes indicates greater
remphasis on the adjective, the question still remains what is meant by
this. And whether you agree or not with the grammars, the question still
remains of what they mean by this. One of my chief concerns, expressed as my
opinion, is that it seems to me that the idea of greater emphasis relates to
the identification of the substantive and not to the topic of discourse,
which remains the substantive. Although, in my view, it is the substantive
unbreakably connected to the adjective as that which the author focuses
attention on about the substantive, it is still the substantive so
characterized that the author remains speaking about. So it is not as if the
author, by use of this construction (at least for those who agree with the
grammars, and iit is striking that it does appear to be a consistent point
made by them) is to be thought of as speaking about the adjective more than
the substantive, and in the case of a prepositional phrase using a noun in
the first attributive position, speaking about the noun of the prepositional
phrase more than the noun its phrase modifies. Rather, it is the substantive
as qualified by the modifier.
Iver:
> The different style of authors can be illustrated by parallel passages as
> for example:
>
> Matt 13:23 hO DE EPI THN KALHN GHN SPAREIS
> Mark 4:20 hOI EPI THN GHN THN KALHN SPARENTES
> Luke 8:15 TO DE EN THi KALHi GHN
BA: I do not wish to refute your attempt to show that these are merely
parallel here. But it could be that Matthew and Luke's versions put greater
emphasis on the goodness of the soil than Mark's does. I am not saying that
this is so, but am not sure that this proves your point.
>> Brian:
>> To give some examples to try and flesh out what I am saying, when Matt
>> 4:5 speaks of Satan taking Jesus into the holy city, the holy character
>> of the city receives emphasis over the city-ness (so to speak) character
>> of it, or maybe better, over the fact that it was a city.
>
> Iver: Not really, since Matthew ordinarily places the adjective before the
> noun. "The Holy City" is a unit equivalent to Jerusalem and there is no
> particular emphasis on its holiness.
BA: Oh I think there is. I think you are correct that it is a unit
equivalent. But that it is part of my point. See above. Here, lete me say
that Jerusalem's holiness and speaking of it as a unit equivalent in this
fashion certainly places emphasis on its holiness over its "city-ness". It
is distinguished as a city as being holy. Nevertheless, this emphasis does
not turn the topic of the phrase to holiness. It still concerns the city
sitinguished by its holiness.
> This phrase is used twice in Matthew (4:5 and 27:53) and both times it is
> EIS THN hAGIAN POLIN.
> The phrase is used 4 times in Rev, and always with the order hH POLIS hH
> hAGIA (11:2, 21:2,10, 22:19).
> Since Matthew ordinarily places the adjective before the noun in an NP
> with article and since John ordinarily places it after the noun, there is
> no particular emphasis intended by the placements here. The order is not
> marked (in technical language).
BA: Perhaps. But it is also possible that Matthew tended to place more
emphasis on adjectives in his descriptiuon of things. I don't think the
question is decided as simply as you are suggesting. One big question would
be why the grammars state this matter of emphasis. I am not saying they
can't be wrong. But I suppose I am saying that my question arises from
assuming they are right. I want to specificy more clearly what they mean, or
what they should mean! I am open to hearing that they are wrong to
generalize in this way. But I would like to hear what others like you think
it means when the emphasis is on the adjective. I would still maintain it
does not move the topic being considered to the adjective, but to the
substantive distinguished by the adjective.
> Brian: Or in Luke 6:45, Jesus speaks of the good man bringing out good
> from the good treasures of his heart. Obviously, the important thing about
> the man here is that he is good. That goodness is highlighted as the
> distinguishing characteristic of the man in question over the fact of his
> "male-ness". But it is still the man that is primarily spoken of.
>
> Iver:
> Luke 6:45 doesn't talk about a man, so male-ness is both irrelevant and
> misleading. The text says hO AGAQOS ANQRWPOS, i.e. the good person. Luke
> probably intends to place focus on the goodness since it is contrasted to
> another person who is evil. A conclusion must be based on not just the
> word order, but the context as well.
>
> Iver Larsen
BA: I think it actually does envision a male, that Jesus does speak there of
the good man, though his use of ANQRWPOS would not be emphasizing "maleness"
as a quality as much as using a male person to symbolize the good person. In
any case, it does not seem to me that the focus is actually placed on
goodness in the sense that the topic switches to goodness. It is more that
the topic is the person characterized by goodness (hence, goodness is
emphasized over personhood in characetrizing this person without switching
the topic to goodness itself), the person viewed from the perspective of the
adjective.
God bless,
Brian Abasciano
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list