[B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Sun Dec 13 23:40:42 EST 2009
The point of saying that the attraction is largely semantic and loosely grammatical is that it does sometimes say something regarding the thought process of the writer. New Testament Greek instances of attraction, for example, sometimes look like assimilation to semitic usage (Winer, Grammatik, 200-201—The text is on Google Books). The situation is further complicated in that Greek does not distinguish restrictive from unrestrictive relative clauses. Ephesians 2:10 is a particularly good example of how complicated things can get. He raises the issue of whether this is indeed a case of attraction of the relative to the antecedent (24, 4 p. 225) has a good discussion of this. Here is a translation (my German is not very good, so I will include the original text. Some other list member can correct me.) Winer seems to suggest that οἶς may not an example of attraction to the antecedent as usually described, which is why I suggested it is, rather, "attracted" to ἐν αὐτοῖς (which is not "attraction" at all):
κτισθέντες ... επὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἶς προητοίμασεν ὀ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν cannot mean (without attraction to the antecedent): for which God has prepared us, etc, since ἠμᾶς would not then be ellided. But simple sttraction is unacceptable: “the [works] which (οἶς = ἅ) God has prepared beforehand,” because the phrase would then not construe with the phrase “we might walk in them” that is, the good works need not be the works previously prepared. Therefore οἶς (without attraction to the antecedent) should not therefore be masculine: we, for whom God has prepared them, to walk in them (Rüchert), taken in this way οἶς would be construed with ἐν αὐτοῖς = ἐν οἶς as in 22,7 (p. 200). Taken this way it would (also) be without attraction to the antecedent: "in which God has prepared for us to walk," or, more closely replicating the structure: "with regard to which God has prepared that we should walk in them."
κτισθέντες … επὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἶς προητοίμασεν ὀ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν kann nicht (ohne Assimilation) heißen: für die uns Gott vorherbereitet hat, damit usw., da ἠμᾶς dann nicht zu entbehren wäre. Aber auch die einfach Assimilation ist unannehmbar: die (ἅ) Gott vorherbereitet hat; denn dazu, dass die Menschen in guten Werken wandeln, müssen nicht die Werke vorherbereitet werden. Soll also οἶς nicht (ohne Assimilation) Masculinus sein: wir, denen es Gott vorherbereitet hat, in ihnen zu wandeln (Rüchert), so ist es nach 22,7 mit ἐν αὐτοῖς zusammenzufassen = ἐν οἶς (also ebenfalls ohne Assimilation): in denen zu wandeln Gott für uns vorherbereitet hat, oder mit genauerer Nachbildung der Structur: bezüglich deren Gott vorherbereitet hat, dass wir ihnen wandeln sollen.
Yancy Smith, PhD
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565 (home)
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
On Dec 13, 2009, at 9:45 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
> I don't recall offhand an instance of "reverse attraction", but that is conceivable. It would then say something regarding the thought processes of the writer. If he had the relative clause in mind prior to writing the antecedent then he might well pass the fleas to the antecedent.
>
>
> 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: "yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
> To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 8:34:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
>
> I think what is at issue in the attraction of the relative is who has fleas first, not who is standing next to whom, because fleas can jump a considerable distance..
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 9:20 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
>
> > "Law abiding"? What would be law abiding would be for a word to be found in the case appropriate to it usage in the clause or sentence. Attraction simply describes the tendency which sometimes is operative for a word to adopt the case of another word in the sentence. In the case I cited the relative was standing shoulder to shoulder with its antecedent and therefore adopted its case -- that isn't "lawful" action. If I stand next to you and you have fleas, I may end up with fleas too.
> >
> >
> > 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: "yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
> > To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 8:11:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Attraction (was: syntax in 2 cor 10:12-13)
> >
> > If "attraction" were so neat and law abiding, grammar would be boring. The invention of "attraction" as a grammatical process, however, is an attempt to explain something more dynamic like "the way of an eagle in the sky,
> > the way of a snake on a rock,
> > the way of a ship on the high seas,
> > and the way of a man with a girl."
> > I would tend to think it is a bit more complicated than what George has written, based on Smyth. A semantic explanation of this phenomenon seems more appropriate for Hellenisitc Greek. A. T. Robertson, for example, in _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, says "The agreement of the relative with antecedent in person, number, gender, and sometives case, is just the natural effort to relate more exactly the two clauses with each other" (p. 711). Robertson's explanation seems supported in the often-occuring inverse attraction of the antecedent to the relative (J. H. Moulton,._Grammar of New Testament Greek_, Vol. III, _Syntax_, by Nigel Turner, p.324), and by certain exceptions to the rule of attraction according to semantic considerations (BDF, _A Greek Grammar of the New Testament_, #294, 1). This topic has been discussed before, do a Google search of attraction of the relative in Greek.
> >
> > Yancy
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2009, at 8:35 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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
> >
> > ---
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> ---
> 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