From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 1997 - 11:57:30 EST
At 10:05 AM -0600 1/29/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 10:37 AM 1/29/97 -0500, Paul Zellmer wrote:
>>I assume that you are trying to connect the POIWN with the prepositional
>>(EIS) phrase. Try letting the EIS phrase be the result of KTISHi and
>>picture a minor break, a comma, if you will, before a parallel clause,
>>POIWN EIRHNHN. Does this make more sense now?
>Boing! Yes, it makes perfect sense now.
>>I guess Paul could have written: hINA POIWN EIRHNHN TOUS DUO KTISHi EN
>>AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPON. This probably would have meant the
>>same, at least on the surface. My guess is the relative importance of
>>the parts would have changed, but that's another can of worms.
>I *like* this can of worms. What is the difference in emphasis between the
>1. hINA POIWN EIRHNHN TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPON
>2. hINA TOUS DUW KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPON POIWN EIRHNHN
I do think the LOGIC would be clearer with the word-order of 1, but I don't
think there'd be a fundamental difference of sense.
Would the following formulation muddle things still further, or is it any
easier to grasp the author's intent in 2:14-15? Of course it's still not
complete, since the thought continues on into 16.
AUTOS GAR ESTIN hH EIRHNH hHMWN, TO MEN MESOTOICON TOU FRAGMOU LUSAS hWSTE
TA AMFOTERA hEN POIHSAI, EN DE THi SARKI AUTOU THN TE ECQRAN KAI TON NOMON
TWN EN DOGMASIN ENTOLWN KATARGHSAS hWSTE THN EIHRHNHN POIEIN, TOUS DUO EIS
hENA KAINON ANQRWPON EN AUTWi KTIZWN ...
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:04 EDT