From: Carlton Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 30 1996 - 11:20:28 EST
Carl Conrad wrote;
>>>>Where I think I am still at odds with him,
however, is any of those sentences he listed where he might still want to
understand the hWN as an object of the preposition rather than as a
relative pronoun functioning within the subordinate relative clause,
whether standing for an accusative or for a nominative, or for some other
type of complement to the subordinate predicate. There was one sentence
wherein the antecedent was "absorbed" into the relative pronoun and
appeared to be the object of PERI, but I think we ought to understand this
as an ellipsis of the antecedent, as in "I know what you mean"--the "what"
stands for "that which," and "that" is the object of "I know" while "which"
is the object of "I mean."<<<<
The answer is yes. I understand where Carl is coming from and in some way
his is easier to understand, which is after all the goal of such analysis
of language. Since attraction of the antecendent is common in Luke, it may
be the more sensible way to deal with it. I see my treatment as more
consistent with the way I have tried to handle the preposition PERI with
the genitive case.
I listed those occurrences of hWN with out analyzing each one in context.
That is always necessary is it not.
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Chair, Division of Religious Studies
voice 318 487-7241
fax 318 442-4996
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:55 EDT