[B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 13 09:35:55 EST 2009
Iver,
This is incorrect. A relative pronoun takes the gender and number, but NOT in case. To quote H. W. Smyth
2501. A relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender, number and person;
its case is determined by the construction of the clause in which it stands.
Attraction describes the instance when the relative (or other word) is not used in its normal case according to its usage in the clause.
In that case it may be "attracted" to the case of the antecedent. In a recent discussion regarding Eph 2.10 (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2009-December/051512.html) Barry commented that the relative there was dative by attraction. He was precisely correct. In other words, the relative does NOT normally take the case of its antecedent but does so when "attracted" to it -- in the case of Eph 2.10 the relative immediately followed its antecedent which explains why it would be attracted to it.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
Cc: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 2:00:36 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
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
---
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