From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 04 1997 - 08:17:38 EST
At 6:30 AM -0600 4/4/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 05:51 AM 4/4/97 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>At 5:33 AM -0600 4/4/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>At 09:46 PM 4/3/97 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>>>>Is that any different from hOI DE LOIPOI ELEGON: AFES IDWMEN EI ERCETAI
>>>>>HLIAS SWSEI AUTON?
>>>>No, because you've put no conjunction before the clause beginning with
>>>OK, let me try again: hOI DE LOIPOI ELEGON: AFES IDWMEN EI ERCETAI HLIAS
>>>hINA SWSHi AUTON?
>>Good: that will serve;also possible: hWSTE SWSAI AUTON, EIS TO SWSAI AUTON,
>>PROS TO SWSAI AUTON, TOU SWSAI AUTON, and I can imagine the sentence also
>>being written: AFES IDWMEN EI HLIAS ELQWN SWSEI AUTON?--which I'd
>>translate: "Let's see if Elijah will come and save him?" In this last
>>version, the purpose is not highlighted, but it would certainly be implicit
>>even so that Elijah would come for no other reason than in order to save
>How about hOPWS SWSHi AUTON? I'm looking at hOPWS IDWSIN hUMWN TA KALA ERGA
>in Matt 5:16.
Yes, of course hOPWS may serve exactly as hINA.
>I just discovered a new phrase: "final clause", which means a clause that
>expresses conscious purpose. I can look this up in Smyth or Robertson and
>find lists of ways to express this stuff. That should come in handy when I
>write my next gospel (grin!).
No, you just discovered an OLD phrase (albeit "new" to you): "final clause"
is what clauses of purpose were called in English long before you and I
were born. I rather think that the "new" or "more recent" term, "clause of
purpose" was invented after Latin had ceased to be a regular school subject
and the adjective "final" in the sense of "concerning ends/purposes" had
become obsolete in English. You will also find "purpose clauses" described
in some of the older grammars as "telic"--but that, of course, has now been
appropriated by the scientific linguists for their own (nefarious?)
You have, however, discovered an important principle: the very same
constructions are called by quite different names in different grammars;
the best grammars at least have parenthetical notes indicating the
alternative names used in other grammars--in reference grammars, at least.
When one couples this inconsistency in grammatical terminology with the
penchant of more recent grammarians to invent brand-new (and often dubious)
grammatical categories, it is hardly any wonder that the house of Greek
Grammar has become a veritable Tower of Babel. It's bad enough that we
pronounce Greek in different ways and that we don't transcribe it
consistently (although I don't think that's usually a big problem).
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT