[B-Greek] Accusative of retained object
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon May 21 22:24:24 EDT 2007
On Monday, May 21, 2007, at 05:15PM, "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:
>One more try:
>
>ROM. 3:1 TI OUN TO PERISSON TOU IOUDAIOU H TIS hH WFELEIA THS
>PERITOMHS; 2 POLU KATA PANTA TROPON. PRWTON MEN [GAR] hOTI
>EPISTEUQHSAN TA LOGIA TOU QEOU.
>
>
>PISTEW (BDAG 818 #3) "entrust something to someone" in the active can
Isn't it PISTEUW (not PISTEW)?
>take three arguments (Lk 16:11b), a nominative, an accusative and a
>dative. The equivalent when found in the passive may have the dative
>"transformed" into an accusative and may retain the accusative
>"object". G.Cooper (1.52.4.2,6) doesn't read this "retained"
>accusative as an object of the passive verb. He suggests that the
>accusative here is functioning as an adverbial.
>
>In Rom 3:2b the subject of EPISTEUQHSAN is not specified since it can
>be supplied from the preceding verse (TOU IOUDAIOU). The "retained"
>accusative is TA LOGIA. The question under consideration is why do we
>find an accusative (direct object??) with passive verb. Carl's
>suggests that we read EPISTEUQHSAN as a middle which can take a
>direct object. G.Cooper reads EPISTEUQHSAN as a passive and the
>"retained" accusative as a functional adverbial.
In a certain sense ALL accusatives are functional adverbials -- and that
applies to what we like to call direct objects as well as other names in
various constructions. ALL accusatives serve to LIMIT the efficacy of a
verb, adverb, or adjective.
Personally I think we get "boxed into" this problem of "retained accusative"
because we think fundamentally about voice in terms of active-passive
opposition. In fact, however, Greek has a fundamental opposition of
active and middle with a middle sometimes functioning as the vehicle
of passive semantics.
>
>Another question worth pondering. If this was an active construction,
>how would the subject slot for PISTEW be filled? Is the motivation
>for putting this in the passive voice to suppress the notion of
>agency? Another way of framing the question, is EPISTEUQHSAN a
>"divine passive"?
It may be that there are constructions deserving of that categorization,
but it's always seemed to me something of a cop-out.
>
>If we read EPISTEUQHSAN as a middle, do these questions become moot?
"They got the LOGIA in trust"?
Carl W. Conrad
>
>On May 21, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 21, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>>
>>> ROM. 3:1 TI OUN TO PERISSON TOU IOUDAIOU H TIS hH WFELEIA THS
>>> PERITOMHS; 2 POLU KATA PANTA TROPON. PRWTON MEN [GAR] hOTI
>>> EPISTEUQHSAN TA LOGIA TOU QEOU.
>>>
>>> PISTEW (BDAG 818 #3) "entrust something to someone" in the active can
>>> take three arguments (Lk 16:11b), a nominative, an accusative and a
>>> dative. The equivalent when found in the passive may have the dative
>>> "transformed" into an accusative. G.Cooper (1.52.4.2,6) doesn't read
>>> this accusative as an object of the passive verb. He suggests that
>>> the accusative here is functioning as an adverbial. Carl will
>>> probably disagree with this analysis.
>>
>>
>> Reading this over again, I can see now that the transformation of the
>> person dative in the active to the accusative in the passive doesn't
>> apply to the text under consideration. Since the person(s) is not
>> explicitly specified in Rom. 3:2b.
>
>Elizabeth Kline
>
>
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list