[B-Greek] Reverse Assimilation to the Relative (was Assimilation of the Relative.)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Dec 16 06:19:28 EST 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
To: Iver Larsen
Cc: Elizabeth Kline ; greek B-Greek
Sent: 16. december 2009 00:56
Subject: [B-Greek] Reverse Assimilation to the Relative (was Assimilation of the
Relative.)
What is going on here?
Λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς·
λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες,
οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας·
παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη
καὶ ἔστιν θαυμαστὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν;
LEGEI AUTOIS hIHSOUS: OUDEPOTE ANEGNOTE EN TAIS GRAFAIS:
LIQON hON APEKOKIMASAN hOI OIKODOMOUTES,
hOUTOS EENHQH EIS KEFALHN GWVIAS
Mat 21:42 (=Mark 12:0; Luke 20:17)
Would λίθον LIQON be a case of reverse attraction? Or would we just chalk this
up to an anacolouthon because of direct quotation? I notice that the quote can
be accomodated more grammatically to the grammar of the relative clause. λίθον
is the subjet of the verb ἐγενήθη EGENHQH and as such should be nominative, but
something has happened. Note also that the pleonastic οὗτος hHOUTOS must occupy
the space in the subject slot to avoid the grammatical trainwreck.
Cp. 1 Pet 2:7 where the quote has been assimilated more grammatically to its RC.
ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, ἀπιστοῦσιν δὲ λίθος ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ
οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας.
hUMIN OUN hTIMH TOIW PISTEUOUSIN, APISTOUSIN DE LIQOS hON APEKDOKIMASAN hOI
OIKODOMOUNTES, hOUTOS EGENHQH EIS KEFALHN GWNIAS.
-------------------
IL: I believe this is traditionally called anacoluthon, quotation or not (BDF
295 and 466), but that does not explain it.
Here the problem seems to be caused by hOUTOS, which usurps the subject position
from LIQOS and separates LIQOS from its verb EGENHQH, so that the noun is
dangling on its own. For such dangling cases, the accusative is often used, but
nominative is also used as your parallel passage shows. Why that happens, I
don't know. It would be useful to collect all the data and see if there is a
pattern that may suggest an explanation. I can give a parallel which is not an
explanation. In the Sabaot language a subject is case marked by tone, but when
the subject is pulled to the front for emphasis, it gets the object case tone
pattern.
Matthew may be getting LIQON from the LXX translation of Psa 118:22, but I
believe there are other cases where such dangling nouns may be either nominative
or accusative.
-------------------
What about this one, 1 Cor. 10:16
Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν;
TO POTHRIAON THS EULOGIAS hO EULOGOUMEN, OUCI KOINWNIA ESTIN TOU hAIMATOS TOU
CRISTOU? TON ARTON hON KLWMEN, OUCI KOINWNIA TOU SWMATOS TOU CRISTOU ESTIN?
Both POTHRION and ARTON are subjects of their their clauses and one would expect
them to be nominative, putatively Τὸ ποτήριον ... κοινωνία ἐστὶν TO POTHRIAON
... KOINWNIA ESTIN and ὁ ἄρτος ... κοινωνία ... ἐστιν hO ARTOS ... KOINWNIA ...
ESTIN. Yet, in both instances they seem to me to be assimilated to the
accusative of the relative.
------------------
IL: Your examples are from BDF 295, and they call it inverse attraction. Another
option is to assume that when a noun like that is fronted into an isolated
position, then it often takes the accusative (The bread, is it not ... rather
than: Is not the bread...) Whatever we call it, it seems to be optional more or
less regardless of case, according to your examples above and the following:
Luke 12:48: παντὶ δὲ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
PANTI DE hWi EDOQH POLU, POLU ZHTHQHSETAI PAR' AUTOU
to anyone who is given much, much will be demanded from him
BDF comments in 295 on Luke 12:48: "the nom. is used in such sentences elsewhere
with anacoluthon."
How do English grammarians explain that the "to" from "give A to B" is outside
the relative clause?
Or is that not English? I notice that only KJV has that kind of grammar:
"unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required"
RSV: Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required.
NIV and NET bring PAS inside the main clause, or maybe they just move PAR' AUTOU
forward and merge it with PANTI?:
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded"
-------------------
How about this one, Luke 12:10?
Καὶ πᾶς ὃς ἐρεῖ λόγον εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· τῷ δὲ εἰς τὸ
ἅγιον πνεῦμα βλασφημήσαντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται.
One expects Καὶ πᾶντι ὃς ἐρεῖ λόγον just as you have in the second second part
of the sentence, τῷ δὲ ... ἀφεθήσεται. So, the dative form of "everyone" seems
to have been assimilated to the nominative of the relative pronoun.
So, as Robertson explained it, inverse attraction can happen when the realtive
clause precedes the main clause, but the antecedent is pulled forward for
emphasis to a position before the realtive. Anacolouthon results in these cases
from abandoning a construction without adjusting it to the final form. Older
transformational grammarians might say that a doom-form didn't get erased before
the final, surface form was completed.
--------------------
IL: This may be the best explanation that one can come up with, but I am not
quite satisfied yet. It CAN happen, but is there any explanation for when it
happens and when it doesn't? In Luke 12:8 the relative clause does not precede a
main clause. There just may not be a fully satisfactory answer.
Iver
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list