[B-Greek] Use of TE solitarium

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Nov 2 03:25:37 EST 2008


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "B-Greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 2. november 2008 03:59
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Use of TE solitarium


>
>
>> From: Scott Kennedy <dustiescott222755 at hotmail.com>
>> Date: October 29, 2008 9:23:32 PM EDT
>> To: Greek B <b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Subject: Use of TE
>>
>>
>> Although this is perhaps off subject, following up on the last post, I
>> wondered how a person should properly use TE in Ancient Greek
>> composition besides the obvious TE KAI construction such as DIA TAUTA
>> hO EN THi POLEI ARCHHGOS APEPEMPSE TAS GUNAIKAS TE KAI TOUS PAIDOUS
>> where it functions linking the objects together as opposed to TAS
>> GUNAIKAS KAI TOUS PAIDOUS KAI TOUS ANDRAS. It's also used in the
>> classic construction OIOS TE EIMI +INFINITIVE, but how does it
>> function in constructions beyond these? What's the difference between
>> it and a KAI?
>
> A search for TE solitarium unearths two items from the archives:
>
> Carl Conrad
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-03/0456.html
>
> Paul O'Rear
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-03/0471.html
>
> One feature that seems to fall out of several discussions of TE vs.
> KAI is the idea of "addition." G.Cooper (1:69.59.0, 2:69:70.0),
> P.O'Rear and S.Levinsohn:2000 [1]  all mention it.

There were 3 posts on May 6, 2004 with subject line Acts 13:52 TE or DE.

It does not make sense to me to try to distinguish between TE and KAI by invoking "addition", since
this is the basic semantic feature which they share.

>
> Somewhat more interesting, in narrative a TE constituent may function
> as a lead in to the next development in the story (see P.O'Rear and
> S.Levinsohn p.108). Most of the NT examples cited for this come from
> Acts, so to be different I will illustrate from John.

I am familiar with my colleague Levinsohn, but not the others. Levinsohn is so focused on the upper
level of discourse studies, that he at times suggests rather complex and dubious analyses where a
simpler analysis at a lower level is more likely to be correct. TE functions at the lower level of
discourse in terms of joining clauses. I do'nt think it is a lead in to a new development.
In fairness to Levinsohn I want to quote his initial and basic definition of TE from section 6.3,
which I agree with:
"TE solitarium, in contrast [to KAI], adds distinct propositions that are characterized by SAMENESS,
in the sense that they refer to different aspects of the same event, the same occasion, or the same
pragmatic unit."
The problem is that he ALSO suggests a different function, which in my view is unwarranted and
not supported by the examples he quotes to support it.

> John 6:16 Ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο κατέβησαν
> οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν
> 17 καὶ ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον ἤρχοντο
> πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς Καφαρναούμ.
> καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω
> ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς,  18 ἥ
> τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος
> διεγείρετο.  19 ἐληλακότες οὖν ὡς
> σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε ἢ τριάκοντα
> θεωροῦσιν τὸν Ἰησοῦν περιπατοῦντα
> ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐγγὺς τοῦ
> πλοίου γινόμενον, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν.  20
> ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ
> φοβεῖσθε.  21 ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν
> εἰς τὸ πλοῖον, καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο
> τὸ πλοῖον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν
> ὑπῆγον.
>
> JOHN 6:16 hWS DE OYIA EGENETO KATEBHSAN hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU EPI THN
> QALASSAN  17 KAI EMBANTES EIS PLOION HRCONTO PERAN THS QALASSHS EIS
> KAFARNAOUM. KAI SKOTIA HDH EGEGONEI KAI OUPW ELHLUQEI PROS AUTOUS hO
> IHSOUS,  18 hH TE QALASSA ANEMOU MEGALOU PNEONTOS DIEGEIRETO.  19
> ELHLAKOTES OUN hWS STADIOUS EIKOSI PENTE H TRIAKONTA QEWROUSIN TON
> IHSOUN PERIPATOUNTA EPI THS QALASSHS KAI EGGUS TOU PLOIOU GINOMENON,
> KAI EFOBHQHSAN.  20 hO DE LEGEI AUTOIS: EGW EIMI: MH FOBEISQE.  21
> HQELON OUN LABEIN AUTON EIS TO PLOION, KAI EUQEWS EGENETO TO PLOION
> EPI THS GHS EIS hHN hUPHGON.
>
> Note TE in v.18 hH TE QALASSA ANEMOU MEGALOU PNEONTOS DIEGEIRETO. I
> think this illustrates several features of TE solitarium. TE attaches
> "an event which is dissimilar to the previous one" (P.O'Rear). It
> highlights a particularly salient aspect of the unfolding drama, while
> it also leads into the next stage in the story (Levinsohn p.108). The
> notion of increased salience involves the extra effort need to process
> a marked form (TE is marked in reference to KAI) In support for this
> Levinsohn cites Gutt:1991 [2] (pps.41,103).

O'Rear is somewhat on the right track, unlike Levinsohn in this quote (Levinsohn does in another
context explain the correct and basic meaning of TE, see above.) The TE solitarium is a conjoiner
which must be analysed together with and in light of the previous clause or sentence.

KAI OUPW ELHLUQEI PROS AUTOUS hO IHSOUS,  18 hH TE QALASSA ANEMOU MEGALOU PNEONTOS DIEGEIRETO

Jesus had not yet come to them and (at the SAME time) the lake was aroused with a strong wind
blowing.

The TE highlights the connection between the fact that they were in great danger on the lake and
that Jesus had not yet come to them.

The TE solitarium indicates overlapping events which are closely attached together. They are
intertwined. The point is not that they are dissimilar, but that the two clauses are twins and must
be read and understood together.  For the TE and KAI, the two twin events are those followed by TE
on the one hand and preceded by KAI on the other. The translation "both - and" tries to capture the
twin events. TE is a tighter connection than KAI. I would not say it is marked in relation to KAI,
just because it is less commonly used, but rather that it has a slightly different function. TE
indicates that the previous event is not complete in itself, but needs to be completed by the event
introduced by TE. KAI can conjoin events which are less related or intertwined.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list