[B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Dec 13 04:00:36 EST 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
To: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
Cc: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 12. december 2009 21:33
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13
On Dec 10, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
> BD has some comments about attraction of the relative, and in §294.5 he
> mentions that when the antecedent is incorporated in the relative clause, it
> is attracted to the case of the relative. He mentions some examples:
> Luke 19:37 PERI PASWN hWN EIDON DUNAMEWN
> Mat 7:2 EN hWI GAR KRIMATI KRINETE KRIQHSESQE, KAI EN hWi METRWi METREITE
> Luk 24:1 HLQON FEROUSAI hA hHTOIMASEN ARWMATA
>
> Concerning 2 Cor 10:13, BD says: "hOU is probably attracted from hO
> (referring to METRON) to KANONOS and then METROU repeated, lest hOU be
> referred to KANONOS."
.
I have never found "attraction" worth bothering with. It seems to be
an explanation that arises out of desperation, we don't know why this
case is used so we invent something and call it attraction.
Elizabeth Kline
---------------------------
Well, I don't particularly like the word, but I think it is helpful to
understand the concept as BDF describes it in §294 and 295. I expect other
grammars discuss it, too. Since the concept has been in the background of some
other posts recently, let me say something about it, even though I am far from
an expert.
Basically, a relative clause is a complete clause with an explicit or implicit
verb plus in many cases a subject and an object, plus sometimes prepositional
phrases. The relative pronoun refers back to a particular noun or sometimes the
whole preceding sentence, in which case it would be neuter. One might expect
that if the relative pronoun is the object, it would be in the accusative as in
"I know the woman, whom you saw". (I think that is old English, but I need the
"whom" to suggest that the relative would be in the accusative.)
Now if I say: "I said to the woman, whom you saw", the "whom" would be in the
dative (if this was Greek), because the antecedent "the woman" would have been
dative.
This is not a hard and fast rule, though, and BDF mentions exceptions.
As far as I know - please correct me if I am wrong - when the relative pronoun
functions as the object of the verb in its clause that takes the object in the
accusative we have the following scenario:
1. If the antecedent is in the nominative, the relative is in the accusative,
because it is the object
2. If the antecedent is in the genitive, the relative is normally(?) in the
genitive, even when it is the object
3. If the antecedent is in the dative, the relative is normally(?) in the
dative, even when it is the object
Some examples of 2:
Mat 18:19 περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται
PERI PANTOS PRAGMATOS *hOU* EAN AITHSWNTAI
about every matter which they may ask for
Luk 3:19 καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν πονηρῶν ὁ Ἡρῴδης
KAI PERI PANTWN *hWN* EPOIHSEN PONHRWN hO hHRWiDHS
and about all the evil things which Herod had done
Luk 5:9 ἐπὶ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων ὧν συνέλαβον
EPI THi AGRAi TWN ECQUWN *hWN* SUNELABON
at the catch of fish which they had caught
Luk 15:16 ἐκ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι
EK TWN KERATIWN *hWN* HSQION hOI COIROI
from the pods which the pigs were eating
Jhn 4:14 ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ
EK TOU hUDATOS *hOU* EGW DWSW AUTWi
from the water which I will give to him/her
2Co 1:4 διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
DIA THS PARAKLHSEWS *hHS* PARAKALOUMEQA AUTOI hUPO TOU QEOU
through the encouragement by which we are being encouraged by God
In this case, the genitive relative stands in place of the dative PARAKLHSEI,
since it is the means by which we are encouraged.
Some examples of 3:
Mat 24:50 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει
EN hHMERAi *hHi* OU PROSDOKAi KAI EN hWRAi *hHi* OU GINWSKEI
In the day which he does not expect and in an hour which he does not know
The two verbs take accusative objects, but the relatives are dative.
Luk 2:20 αἰνοῦντες τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἤκουσαν καὶ εἶδον
AINOUNTES TON QEON EPI PASIN *hOIS* HKOUSAN KAI EIDON
They were praising God for the all the things which they had heard and seen.
The hOIS is in the dative even though it functions as object in the relative
clause.
Luk 9:43 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἐποίει
EPI PASIN *hOIS* EPOIEI
at all the things which he was doing
If the antecedent is in the accusative, I think the relative takes the case that
is to be expected from its function in its own relative clause.
The matter is complicated by the fact that the antecedent is often incorporated
inside the relative clause.
Is there a place where a more detailed explanation is found than in BDF 294 and
295?
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list