[B-Greek] EIMI with no Predicate Nominative
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Oct 12 09:16:04 EDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Litwak" <javajedi2 at yahoo.com>
To: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 11. oktober 2008 21:57
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] EIMI with no Predicate Nominative
> Sorry for the transcription error. I know that EIMI does not take an "object" but I am unsure
what everything else but predicate nominatives (or EIS + accusative, which functions that way) are
to be called with verbs like EIMI, GINOMIA, and (UPARHW. That aside, why does the number exist in
the last words of David rather than the alternative, the number in the writings of David is from
twenty years and up? Is this just a matter of deciding what seems to make more sense, or is there a
grammatical rule that governs whether to see EIMI as going with the EN-based prepositional phrase
versus the APO-based prepositional phrase? Perhaps I'm just looking for science where there is
only art. I'd like to be able to give my students something better than "it makes more sense this
way." Thanks.
>
>
> Ken
I would encourage your students to take a basic course in semantics, because only then does grammar
begin to make sense.
A verb like EIMI is tricky because of its many usages, both in Greek and English. I have earlier
said that the use of the term "predicate" in traditional Greek grammar is so confusing that IMO it
ought to be banned or least rarely used.
Every verb semantically has one, two or rarely three participants (sometimes called "arguments")
with different semantic roles. In addition, several secondary roles exists, and they can be attached
to the semantic verb which is always the nucleus of the clause.
If I say "She is beautiful", the semantic verb is really "be beautiful" rather than "be". Some
languages would say "She beautifuls". The verb "be beautiful" is a monovalent verb with one
participant "she" in the semantic role of "patient". Monovalent semantic verbs with a P(atient) role
are descriptive. Whether they are encoded in a particular language as verbs or adjectives or an
adjective supported by "to be" is not particularly important.
I cannot give a course in semantics here, so back to the text.
LXX 1Chr. 23:27
ὅτι ἐν τοῖς λόγοις Δαυιδ τοῖς ἐσχάτοις
ἐστὶν ὁ ἀριθμὸς υἱῶν Λευι ἀπὸ εἰκοσαετοῦς καὶ ἐπάνω
[hOTI EN TOIS LOGOIS DAUID TOIS ESCATOIS
ESTIN hO ARIQMOS hUIWN LEUI APO EIKOSAETOUS KAI EPANW]
As a translator I would always look at the Hebrew text when trying to understand a passage from the
LXX, because this is translational Greek and therefore is often not clear in Greek. This is a common
experience. When I read a poor, somewhat literal translation of an English novel into my language, I
often have to back translate literally into English in order to make sense of it. When we in SIL
study the grammar of a language not described before, we avoid translated texts, because they are
likely to have skewed or incorrect grammar. The more literal the translation is, the worse the
grammar is.
And then, of course, the context is all important, since a sentence is open to all sorts of
interpretations if
taken out of context. The author or translator never meant for it to be severed from its context.
I noticed that in v. 27 there is no Hebrew word corresponding to ESTIN, but there is a word hemma
(HMH) (they/these ones?) which is missing from the LXX.
The Hebrew text is not very clear either, but looking at in context, I interpret it to mean:
"For according to the last words/instructions of David, they/these ones [those assigned to work in
the Temple service - from verse 24] (is) the group of Levites from 20 years and upwards."
Therefore, I take hO ARIQMOS hUIWN LEUI APO EIKOSAETOUS KAI EPANW to be the complex subject of the
clause, and mispar/ARIQMOS refers not so much to a number as to a quantity or group of people. There
is no counting going on in this verse. The genitive hUIWN LEUI delimits the head noun hO ARIQMOS and
the APO phrase further narrows down the reference to a subset of the Levites.
This group of Levites ESTIN something, but it is implicit what they are. That is where context comes
in - it is this group that is directed to do the Temple service while assisting the priests. The
first EN phrase only says where this directive came from.
Why they were counted from 30 years in v. 3 is not very clear. However, an actual number was only
given in v. 3. My guess is that those between 20 and 30 were in apprenticeship and were not allowed
to work on their own, so they are not counted, even though they take part in the work.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list