Re: rel. pron. in Mt 21:35

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Mon Oct 02 1995 - 16:09:50 EDT

At 1:48 PM 10/2/95, David Moore wrote:
> I'm thinking that probably the relative pronouns should be taken
>as Mark Durie and Domenico Lembo have suggested: as demonstrative pronouns
>here. Or as Carl Conrad has explained: still relative, but understood in
>English prose as demonstrative. Understanding them so would explain why
>the editors have put a period at the end of v.35 and why most translators
>render 35 and 36 as two sentences.

Actually, in my last note directly on the question of hON MEN ... hON DE
..., I've accepted the proposition that they must in fact be
demonstratives, that this is, in fact, a survival of a usage of hOS as a
demonstrative that is as old as Homer. I did question the suggestion or
assertion of Domenico Lembo that this originates as a usage of the relative
AS a demonstrative from such expressions as ESTIN hOS (TAUTA PRATTEI H TI

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT