[B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Dec 14 00:05:09 EST 2009
The problem I have with the whole "attraction" terminology thing is that it seems to obfuscate rather than clarify. That is, it may be that the use of a case that conforms to the antecedent in the relative (or the reverse, where the antecedent takes the case of the relative, which also happens) is unconscious (and therefore a mistake and "attraction" is a convenient excuse, which eventually becomes an exception-to-the-rule rule. I would suggest that assimilation of either relative or antecedent (a better term, perhaps) is an option with semantic value. As a previous post from 1997 (from Clayton Bartholomew) suggested,
"What if we assume that the speaker/writer of K[oine] Greek has the option (choice) of putting the relative in the case of the antecedent or in the case that represents the relative['s] function in it's own clause. And what if we assume that the user of K. Greek makes this choice based on a desire to emphasize the role of relative in one of two domains. If the K. Greek user wants to emphasize the role of the relative in the main clause, that is in the clause of the antecedent, then the relative is put in the case of the antecedent. If the K. Greek user wants to place emphasis on the role of the relative in the subordinate clause, then the relative is put in the case of it's function within the relative clause."
This is an intriguing idea, but only adds to the complexity of the issue of attraction/assimilation. I.e., it may be conscious as well as unconscious.
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list