From: L. Mark Bruffey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 12 1997 - 13:36:42 EDT
Guelich, on p 125 says WSTE
". . . introduces a result clause that connects 2:28 syntactically with
2:27. Therefore, to take 2:28 as a summary of 2:23-27 . . . or even the
larger context of 2:1-26 . . . is to ignore the logic and syntax of 'so
that' in 2:28 which results from the content of 2:27."
Can anyone show me evidence to the contrary? That is, can you show
specific references (not assertions from lexicons) where WSTE functions
in the way Guelich asserts it cannot?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:12 EDT